Dawlish Discussion

Some may remember that back last year an application by Richard Weeks to convert a barn at Warren Farm into an agricultural dwelling was refused planning permission by TDC.

That decision is now being Appealed.

This link should take you to the appropriate page on TDC's planning portal http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Appeal&Refval=15/00012/REF

if you click on associated documents to the bottom left you should be able to read all the Appeal documentation. Read especially The Grounds for Appeal. I found that a very interesting and thought provoking read. 

Also have a read of "Appellant's Statement Appendice" dated 30th March 2015.

Thanks for the steer, Lynne. 

Anyone who wants to know what is really happening at Warren Farm would do well to take a look at the two documents you have highlighted above.

As you say, thought provoking...

Way too much information for most people to trawl through. 

As I read it, TDC supports developers building 1800+ houses on their own land (landowner earns approx £200,000 per hectare) but rather than provide the requisite green space on that land, they want to compulsorily purchase the Weeks' land for £25,000 per hectare.   What a racket.  What an injustice.

And who are the landowners who will get this cash windfall. 

Is that a rhetorical question Ken?

@Lynne yes

This Appeal is on the agenda at this evening's Dawlish Town Council planning committee meeting.

As it is on the agenda (Item 12) any member of the public wishing to attend and speak on the matter would be allowed to do so at the beginning of the meeting, or at another time at the discretion of the PC Chairman. BTW, for those contemplating doing so it would be sensible to take your own support material as the Town Council are well known for not providing anything other than a printed agenda at their meetings (all down to keeping costs to a minimum, I am told - but you won't find supporting documentation online either).

Could be another lively meeting - not only Warren Farm, but also the 'Statue of Happiness', Shell Cove House and Shutterton Park (revised plans) to be considered...

@soullofDawlish

Your remark about 'the the Town Council are well known for not providing anything other than a printed agenda' is incorrect.  Supporting papers are available for anything drafted for the Town Council in Part I of an agenda, and if a copy is not in the rack outside the Town Clerk's office you can request it during office hours. Part II items are in the confidential part of the agenda and clearly only issued to members of the committee in question.  Late items or reports laid on the table at a meeting will be attached to Minutes of that meeting when they are issued.

As far as papers for Planning committee are concerned, the agendas are based on information forwarded by Teignbridge District Council and carry the planning reference given by Teignbridge to each application.  Anyone can use the TDC planning portal to read anything relating to an application.

None of this precludes the possibility of a late item being received and included on the agenda because a decision can not be deferred and included in the published agenda of the following meeting.

Agendas have to be issued at least three working days before a meeting to comply with Standing Orders, and so as to give Members the opportunity to make enquiries and prepare for the matter to be debated properly.

Thank you for this clarification Bob - but for someone with work and other commitments it is often impractical to drop in to The Manor House to collect paperwork. My experience has been that only bare agendas are to be found in the rack - and in any case I understand the clerk's office hours extend only to 1.30pm.

As you will be aware, the question as to why supporting documents are not placed on the DTC website was raised in March. Such a change would seem a good way of trimming printing, administration and postage costs, while also allowing greater transparency in Town Council decision making, The question however received a cool - if polite - response. It is my hope now that any review of document handling in the light of recent transparency code recommendations may (if the Council is so minded) bring forward such benefits in the near future.

It's a fair point that improvements are needed to the town council website.  Including capacity to carry more volume of documents.  It's not a lack of will, but rather a shortage of that most valuable commodity, time.

Even so, I think most longstanding observers will feel a greater effort has been made to improve communications and involvement

Thank you, Michael - and improving communications and involvement are things that I know both you and Bob have been keen to promote.

Coming back to the point, does anyone know if the matter of the Warren Farm planning appeal was commented upon by the DTC Planning Committee last night?

The planning appeal is over the refusal of TDC to allow the conversion of a barn in to a house for Mr Week's son.   The town council voted that it will write to the Inspector and state that it does not object to the conversion provided that it can be shown that it is necessary for the future viability of the farm business.

Did DTC planning committee refuse this application the first time it came before them? If they did, why have they changed their mind? If they didn't then do we know why TDC refused the planning application? 

This link should take you to the original planning application re the barn conversion

http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=14/02023/NPA

Usually, the parish council's (in this case Dawlish Town Council's) comments would be placed online alongside all the other documentation. But I can't find anything from the town council. Does anyone know why that is?

Hi Lynne

There was a mix up in the admin section at TDC which meant that the application wasn't listed in the weekly application list sent out by Teignbridge.   This is used within the town council office to prepare the DTC planning agenda, which meant that it never was put before the town council planning committee.

The DTC planning committee have used the opportunity of the planning appeal to put forward their views on this application for the first time.

Thanks for the clarification Michael.

I don't know how you found that Lynne, when I searched the portal by postcode it only came up with Leadstone applications.    Michael, are the the current DTC planning committee members?

Chairman: Councillor Bob Vickery

Vice Chairman: Councillor Mrs Pauline Bloomfield

Councillor Harrie Burrowes

Councillor Mr Gregory Fenne

Councillor Mrs. Mary Lowther

Councillor Mrs. Linda Petherick

Councillor Mrs Rosalind Prowse

Councillor Margaret Swift

@Mcjrpc - the original planning application is referrred to right at the very top of the Grounds of Appeal document which can be found via the link I have given at the very beginning of this thread. 

Thank you, Michael for the information regarding how our planning committee voted on Thursday.

Many who follow this discussion will of course understand the sad irony in the support being given by DTC to this appeal "provided that it can be shown that it is necessary for the future viability of the farm business". Many would agree that it is reasonable that the conversion of a barn into accommodation for Richard Weeks's son at Warren Farm would allow the better care of land and livestock, thus preserving or enhancing the viability of the business. 

The truth is however, that no matter what the Appeal inspector may rule, the viability of the Weeks family's farm business will hinge on a decision by Teignbridge DC whether or not to proceed with the Compulsory Purchase of Warren Farm.

Warren Farm comprises around one third of the Weeks family's farming business.  This land has been in family ownership for almost 60 years. They want to stay on their land and continue to farm but - just as you cannot buy two thirds of a tractor - without the economies of scale, the viability of the business will be threatened, along with the security of the Weeks family.

Notwithstanding any decision by TDC, let's hope the Inspector will be on their side.

@Mcjrpc

Yes, all the people listed are members of the town council Planning Committee, except for Cllr Burrowes who resigned some months ago when she realised that her work commitments were clashing with the dates of the planning committee.   The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are automatically members too.

@Soul

I understand the point you make.   As you know, planning decisions are made upon the detail of the application up for discussion.   In this case, it was the issue of the proposed barn conversion only, it was not an application to create a Coastal Park.  

Teignbridge are yet to bring forward any detailed plans for a Coastal Park that can be scrutinised or challenged, despite the town council having urged them to do this three years ago when the draft Plan Teignbridge was being discussed.   I think everyone wants TDC to provide this information.  It's wrong this hasn't happened.

Mjrpc, I too thought the three questions to be strange, but deleted as soon as I posted my own observation as I really couldn't be bothered lol. 

@Mrs C

In your now-deleted post you did not observe that the questions were strange, far from it.  But as you have a habit of deleting posts we can't really argue the point now.

Perhaps those concerned can explain why they think the questions are strange? I really am at a loss here. I am always interested in the correlation between the planning decisions made at DTC and the subsequent decisions made at TDC because, as we all know, the real decisions are made at TDC. I didn't see the post from Mrs C! 

I think it's because you asked questions of the the town council planning committee and referred to them as 'they'.  Given Michael was able to answer the questions I wanted to know if there had been a recent change of membership.  Nothing to have an argument about.  

Bernard, the point is that I'm not going to argue the point. :-)

@mrjrcrp and Mrs C, it still doesn't explain why the questions are strange. Having said that, mrjrcrp did not say the questions were strange, that was Mrs C. And I am not arguing, just asking for a perfectly reasonable explanation.

@mrjrcrp to answer your question, I could not recall being at a planning meeting where this was discussed but, due to work and family commitments, I have missed a lot of planning meetings so it may well have come up and I was not aware that it had. Hence my questions and the use of 'they' as I had not included myself. 

You. Were. On. The. Committee. 

I thought it strange because I don't understand why you don't already have the answers to those questions. You know, to have enabled you to have made an informed decison the other night about the appeal. 

Ok Margaret.    So are you standing in the forthcoming council elections and if so won't your family and work commitments mean you'll be missing more?  It's surely a fair question.  You have been very crtitcal of town planning matters but if you're not at the meetings and you don't make it your business to find out what you've missed you'll be short changing those who think you represent their views.  

I thought my question was about finding out what I had missed!! You think I have been critical of planning matters? You have not heard the half of it!! 

@Mrs C, I wasn't' there! I was working. I had followed procedure and sent my apologies. Umfortunately I still work to keep a roof over my head. Actually, not unfortunately as I really enjoy my work. When I retire, or I am wealthy enough not to have to work, I will attend every council meeting going if I am elected to do so. It's not unlike national politics, those who don't have to work for a living can become MPs.

The point is, Mrs C, your follow-up post to the one that you deleted contained a downright lie.  Your deleted post actually stated that the three questions were very good questions, and that perhaps a councillor from the planning commitee could answer them.

I can see in future that I will have to start taking screenshots of your posts, just to be able to prove what a lying, deceitful person you are once you start hitting the delete button.

I do wish this forum would follow the convention of others, and prohibit post deletions.

It was irony dear Bernard!  Surely even you can see that??!  I thought better of it though and deleted it within 30 seconds. Nothing to do with deceit Bernard. Like I said I'm not arguing with you as you're beneath contempt with your terrible attempts at trolling (amongst other things). 

It was not 30 seconds Mrs C, I read it some time later.  Another lie from you.

30 seconds Bernard. Time flies doesn't it dear? x

30 seconds or 30 minutes, it doesn't warrant calling someone a deceitful liar.   This incessant anger is quite sinister.  

I'm just pointing out Mrs C's true nature, I couldn't care less if you have a problem with that.

Deceit is writing things on forums and on newspaper websites in support of someone, without stating that you're related to them...

Scores on the doors?  Margaret, you've attended 3 planning meetings out of the last 10, and 2 of those were after It was pointed out on this forum that you'd only been to 1 in 7.    If your finances need a boost maybe you should apply for a grant from the FInance and General Purpose Committee.  You've only been to 3 of their last 9 meetings so I doubt they'd recognise you.

PS You might want to have a word with the minute taker as your recent apologies are not being recorded either.  

Dorian, get a life!! 

@Dorian on a point of accuracy, my apologies have been recorded when the town clerk clerks the town council meetings, check your facts! they were not recorded for one particular planning meeting because no one knew michael clayson was to clerk the meetings from that point onwards and my apologies were sent to the dtc officer who normally clerks the meeting. Apart from that one meeting, when my apologies were retrospectively recorded because I had informed the TC I was not attending, I think you will find that I have informed DTC whenever I cannot attend a meeting. 

And who are you related to Mrs C..........oh we wouldn't know because we don't know who you are because you are not brave enough to post under your own name! 

@Mrjrcrp, if someone is deceitful and is a liar then surely stating the blindingly obvious is not sinister just uncomfortably true? 

Oh my mistake Margaret, I checked my facts and it seems you also missed the last two meetings so actually it's 3 out of 11 on Planning and 3 out of10 on F&GP.   And like I said your apologies are not always minuted so you might want to have a word...

To my mind the biggest deceit is you purporting to be a councillor when you clearly don't have a clue not least because you never turn up.  

Never?? Check your facts. And like I said.........get a life!! 

An uncomfortable truth?   Prove it otherwise! 

I think you could easily find enough evidence on this forum if you were bright enough to know how to search for it. 

Ps I assume you are checking your facts.........never?? 

I notice both Mrs C and Dorian are posting on another thread but do not have the courage or the conviction to reply on this thread!! Sums them both up really! 

Attendance as above.  Minuted apologies as below. 

3 Dec - no attendance, no apologies 

11 Dec - no attendance, no apologies

17th Dec - no attendance, no apologies 

19 Feb - no attendance, no apologies

29th January - no attendance, apologies retrospectively added. 

Source: Dawlish Town Council 

Your lack of apologies are minor points compared to your lack of attendance and shameful lack of knowledge.  And don't ever be so arrogant as to tell me to get a life for pointing this out, you are accountable to your fellow citizens and especially the ones you have fooled into voting for you. 

Erm, reply to what Margaret?

I would say check your facts again. It is rare that I fail to send my apologies. I suspect that the December meetings were additional meetings called at the last minute as normally committees do not meet after mid-December. You also do not indicate which committees were meeting. And I note your criticisms cover just five meetings out of how many over the the last year?? Once again, you are choosing to use information to support your spurious claims, not unlike the councillors you support. 

@Mrs C...........erm.........4th april 23.21!! 

Tell you what Margaret, since you're so sure you didn't miss 8 of the last 11 planning meetings, and didn't miss 7 of the last 10 F&GP meetings, and you did send your apologies to the meetings I listed above, why don't YOU check your facts and report back.  If you can tell us the council got it wrong they can correct it and you'll have me to thank.    

As for the councillors I support - I support honest, hardworking, dignified ones, not the crazed sham ones.  Read into that what you will. 

Well, there are several points you make there Dorian, or whoever you are. I will check my apologies were listed because, as a professional working woman my professional duties have to come first as I am sure you can appreciate, (or perhaps not) and I do try to ensure I lodge my apoligies when I cannot attend a meeting. Out of interest, where do you get your information from because the last time I looked at the DTC website minutes only go back to last September, which gives information on only the last seven F&GP meetings. So, either you are some sort of anorak when it comes to saving the minutes of all meetings or...........some Councillor anorak is supplying you with the information! Which is it? And as for honest hardworking dignified councillors, does that include those who try to assassinate the character of their colleagues? I could supply you with some interesting information on that score! 

@Dorian, i make no apologies for my attendance, or lack of, at planning meetings. i was asked to make up numbers a year ago and at the time i did explain that i was unlikely to attend many meetings as i am often not in dawlish on a thursday. michael clayson asked if i was prepared to be on the planning committee as they needed as many councillors as possible to ensure each meeting was quorate and i agreed. if i had known not very nice  people like you would hold it against me then i might have made a different decision. i have attended those meetings i have been available for and if that offends you then tough! 

Mcjrpc - that picture says it all about her! She fumbles around for a justification and the best she can find is that she wants to know who I'm related to! I hope her household has plenty of paracetamol in stock this morning! I also assume that she'll be asking her mother, who posts on here anonymously, to reveal her true identity too - I don't want her to but Margaret seems to think that it's a necessity to do so. 

That's it for me for now. I've paid employment to attend - as a professional working woman. Just in case no-one realised...

There is a fundamental misunderstanding between Dorian and Margaret.   I hope if I help to unravel it, all concerned will feel they can leave this argument in the past.

The December dates that Dorian refers to above are actually for meetings of a sub-committee set up to prepare the draft budget.   Margaret was not a member of that sub-committee.  She was not expected to attend (Although all councillors are welcome) and as such did not need to send apologies.

Unfortunately, due to lack of space on the council website, these minutes are published alongside the minutes of the full Finance committee.  It looks to me like this is the cause of the problem, as it gives the impression that they are all the same committee.

With regard to the two planning committee meetings quoted.  Margaret did send her apologies in emails to the town council office.  Unfortunately, these hadn't been opened before the meeting, and so they were not passed on in time.  That is why in both cases there is a sentence in the minutes that reads "subsequent to the meeting it was established that Cllr Swift had emailed her apologies".   The rules of procedure require it to be written like this as the list of apologies presented in the minutes has to reflect what was actually said on the night of the meeting.

Margaret asks Dorian if "Some councillor anorak is supplying you with the information".  I realise that I resemble that remark, I am at times a terrible anorak, so can I make it clear again that I am not in communication with Dorian outside of what is publicly written on this forum.  I do not know who she or he is, I do not private message or in any other way communicate with Dorian. 

This is the second time on this particular topic that reference has been made to the need to improve the town council website.   It has never made it to the top of the work list, and I think the lesson of this unfortunate episode is that time and resources need to be found over the coming year to rectify this. 

Thank you Michael and I hope Margaret thanks you too.  And me for that matter, the council minutes have indeed been painting her as more of a slacker than even I'd given her credit for.    By the way there is a section on the website which contains other minutes of the F&GP Sub Commitee so why is space an issue?

So to correct it, it's

4 absences out of 7 at F&GP meetings.

8 absences out of 11 on Planning.  

And because I highlighted the Minutes of only 2 committees (the issues she's been most vocal about) to complete the picture,

3 absences out of the last 5 Civic Amenities meetings,

1 absence  out of 3 Events meetings

3 out of 9 Town Council meetings.  

By the way, I do realise it might not be fair to pick out one person's attendance.  It's only because this particular person makes much of being diligent and conscientious and is particularly abusive to and about her fellow councillors.  In the interests of fairness I'll list other attendances elsewhere.

And just for the record, no 'anorak' is giving me information, it's all my own oeuvre.  I somehow manage to combine it with a profession, a family, ageing relative, and a busy social life.  I may even stand as Councillor.  Or maybe I already do...

Mrs C, where do you get your information from? I can assure you that my 88 year old mother does not post on here, anonymously or otherwise. You are a pain but no paracetamol required. And,........yes you are right.........no one had realised! 

Thank you  Michael for bringing clarity to the situation. 

I will repeat what I have already said several times. I attend the meetings I am able to within my working and caring commitments. Most of my work takes me away from home so I am not in a position where I can finish work at 5 and attend a meeting at 7. When I stood for council four years ago I made that very clear to the Voices for Dawlish group but they still asked me to stand. I can only say I have done my best over the four years but for some, like Dorian, that will never be good enough. 

Oh dear Margaret! Was this post, below, written by you last Augut a lie then? Or is your 'deceit' in the post that immediately precedes this one?

Margaret Swift

02 Aug 2014 10:12

Good heavens Mrs C, you are out of date!! She did post at that time but has not posted for a very long time. It is really gratifying to know that you know nothing about me and my family! And what a sad life you do lead........

As I said, what a sad life you lead! 

Sad for remembering a nugget you'd previously posted, that's now caught you out lying? Hands up from me in that case, ex-Councillor Swift...

But I wasn't lying! Last August my mother was posting on Dawlish.com, but doesn't any longer and hasn't done for quite some time. Which bit of that don't you understand? You really are a very, very strange person and a very unpleasant one.

My mother did post under her real name!! And I haven't lied, you just cannot accept you have got it wrong. 

i think you are probably indulging in your normal nightly pastime........you know, the one you accuse me of! How many bottles tonight? 

I'm not indulging in anything alcoholic Margaret. If I was I'd be ranting at people to "grow up", "get a life" and using made up words like "pleaseeeeeee". 

You're never ever going to admit that you've been caught out lying, you're not big enough to ever do that. The hole you're digging is getting ever deeper, so I'll leave you for now, no doubt for you to have the final insult. I've got yet more paid employment to get up for in the morning...

I don't lie, I don't need too! Clearly YOU are not big enough to admit you got it wrong. I could easily prove my mother's use of this site and when she last posted but I doubt you would believe the evidence if I put it under your nose. And this all started with your post about people being deceitful, from someone not brave enough to use their own name! Good night, sleep tight. 

Well I for one believe you Margaret.  No mother wants to find out her children are the playground bullies. 

Is it brave to post under your real name?  For some I'd say 'ill advised' is a more diplomatic description. 

For goodness sake you lot, GROW UP.

It's been four days since a post related to the subject thread has appeared here. Please do the watching public (if there are any of them left) a big favour and take your unedifying tag-team mud-wrestling exhibition elsewhere.

There is now a new addition to the Appeal documentation and that is the minutes of the Dawlish Town Council planning meeting. (to find it click on the link that I gave in my first posting, then click on associated documents, then look to the very top.)  The Town council comment that is relevant to this Appeal can be found at the top of page 8 of the town council planning committee mintues. (sorry, I can't cut and paste it).  Note that Cllr M Lowther had to leave the room and not speak on the issue, let alone vote, as she had to declare an interest.

I raise this matter as I see that Cllr M Lowther is an Independent candidate for Dawlish Central and North East ward where Warren Farm is situated. Might it be the case therefore that if Cllr Lowther were to be elected to Teignbridge District Council that she would still have to declare an interest and thus not be able to speak, let alone vote, on any issue concerning Warren Farm?

I also understand that if a Cllr has a spouse, civil partner, or is a co-habitee with someone who has a pecuniary interest in any particular issue, then that Cllr has to declare an interest and cannot speak or vote on the issue that is covered by the pecuniary interest.

I am therefore wondering how many other candidates might find themselves caught up in the pecuniary interest rule should they be successfully elected thereby finding themselves effectively gagged and voteless on the Warren Farm controversy irrespective of how supportive they might personally be to Richard Weeks' cause to keep Warren Farm from being compulsory purchased by TDC.  

Re my post immediately above this one.

Can someone who has more knowledge of council matters than myself comment on the point I raised concerning the obligation to declare an 'interest' in Warren Farm and the consequences of having to declare such an interest so that any councillor who has to do so then finds themselves not being able to speak and vote on anything to do with Warren Farm.

This is a very important matter that needs clarification.

I don't know Lynne but I found this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240134/Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf

Sounds like she has no input on this vote unless she gets a dispensation.   Are you thinking it diminishes the value of voting for her if that's a priority issue? 

Well, my thinking is this. That it is a priority issue for those of us who wish Richard to have a voice at TDC, via councillors elected in his own ward, and for those councillors to be able to vote on council matters that in anyway relate to Warren Farm.  

I see no point in my voting for any candidates who are on Richard's side but who would have to declare an interest and therefore not be able to speak or vote on his behalf.

From that link that Mcjrpc has provided:

She declared her interest as rental of land for a family caravan.    Maybe if she feels strongly for Mr Weeks' plight she'll move it!

I have to say that thought had gone through my head as well.  And I'd say the same to any other candidates standing who are

in a similar situation as Cllr Lowther.

Q: If you know you would have to declare an interest on any issue relating to Warren Farm why haven't you taken steps to remove the cause of that

interest?

Well it would be very noble if she did but unless she's been banging the drum for Mr Weeks I wouldn't hold it against her if she doesn't.  It's surely not her fault that a planning dispute coincides with where the family caravan is kept.   Has she voiced an opinion on it previously? 

Oh I agree totally. If any councillor has to declare an interest on any matter to do with Warren Farm but is not inclined to bang the drum for Mr Weeks then the fact that they have to declare an interest is not an issue for them.  Which might explain why no action has been taken to remove the cause of the need to declare an interest. (and those really really cynical like me might say that  if some councillors have to declare an interest then that might be a very useful thing politically to hide behind? Sorry Richard, old mate, would love to help you really I/we would but I/we can't you see because of  (insert pecuniary interest reason here)).  

 I imagine ML can't voice an opinion publicly because of having to declare an interest. And I am wondering how many other councillors/candidates might be subject to that same omerta.

That said I'll swear I saw ML behind the 'sign the Warren Farm petition here' stall at the Christmas market last December. So that would imply to me........ 

I need to correct my comment above when I wrote" I am wondering how many other councillors/candidates might be subject to that same omerta".

Because I have very good reason to believe that there are at least two more.

 I don't know where they stand on the question of Warren Farm because even if they are pro Richard's cause they can't say so publicly, can't participate in any discussion at council meetings relating to Warren Farm and they certainly cannot vote.

So, for those of us who wish Richard and his family to have a voice at TDC I see no point in us voting for candidates who have a pecuniary interest to declare with regard to Warren Farm. 

But if they're not pro Richard's cause, wouldn't that be good for him - fewer votes against him?

Or maybe this clause would be relevant to obtaining a dispensation to vote:

The object of the exercise (well my object at least) is to get elected on to TDC, councillors who are

1).pro Richard's cause and who 2).do not have to declare a pecuniary interest. That way they can both speak for and vote on his behalf.

(More votes for him). They can also speak about the issue in public. 

With regard to that clause that you quote. Wouldn't that need a quite inordinate number of councillors having to declare an interest

in Warren Farm?(assuming that the clause could be applied of course).   

I thought it might be interesting to view this through the mechanism favoured by the Lib Dems on their election leaflets

The perpetual refrain is that only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories because last time they were only 523 votes behind.  We are constantly told that anything else is a wasted vote

So, what happened last time in Dawlish Central North East?   There are 3 seats, one was won by a Conservative and the other by an Independent.

There was a close result for the third seat.

Ted Hockin (Conservative) 1,095 votes - 37%

Mary Lowther (Independent) 1,065 votes - 36%

Judith Robins (Lib Dem) 599 votes - 20%                   Total votes cast 2,932

Interestingly the margin between defeat and victory was the same in both the parliamentary and council elections, one percent.

The logic of the Lib Dem argument must surely be that to vote anything other than Independent risks giving an easier victory to the Conservative candidates. 

Yes, it may be that strength of feeling on this one issue may be strong enough to upset the result from last time, but it seems a high wire strategy.  We may wake up on May 8th and find that there are 3 Conservative district councillors.  Do we know how they are likely to vote on issues relating to SANGS, the Coastal Park and Warren Farm?  It could be that there is one more vote against the defence of Warren Farm

Well if they follow the Conservative Party line re Warren Farm (and I see no reason why they shouldn't) then I think we know exactly how they will vote on issues relating to Sangs, the coastal park and Warren Farm. 

However, there have been 'developments' (how ironic a phrase!) since 2011.    

Please can you or someone tell us how the Independent candidates will vote on these issues should they (the Independent candidates) be elected on May 7th.

We know the Tory line

We know the Lib Dem line

What is/are the Independents' line(s)?

How can we vote for candidates (or not) if we don't know what their stance is on an issue that some of us find very important. 

I think it's in the nature of being an Independent that they vote on the case being put forward, not party lines

And as we all know ( And I have complained several times) the district has consistently failed to put forward any detailed case for designation of land at Warren Farm as a coastal park/Sangs

Knowing the character of the Independent candidates, I'm willing to trust their judgement.  I don't believe they would vote for a planning application or land acquisition that was not justified.  I'm not going to run the risk of waking up on May 8th with 3 Tory ward councillors

On a related issue. Is there not a serious risk that any candidate who stands for election saying "I will never support this" will be debarred from taking part in a Planning vote because they are "Predisposed" to vote a particular way.  The law is very complex and candidates should step very carefully in their comments.  

A supplementary question - if any or all of those three Independent candidates were to be elected are they aware NOW of any reason whereby they would need to declare a pecuniary interest in Warren Farm when any issue relating to it was debated/voted upon at TDC?

I am aware of the predetermination regulation with regard to planning applications. (Not that, as I see it, that would be of any relevance should the rule relating to pecuniary interest come into play cos any councillor having to declare a pecuniary interest would be barred from speaking and voting anyway).

They should know the pros and cos of the Warren Farm case by now for goodness sake. Are you seriously suggesting that they don't have opinions on the matter?

So, to get away from the planning application predetermination problem. I'll rephrase the question: do the Independent candidates support TDC's present policy that if push comes to shove Warren Farm should be compulsory purchased? Yes or No. 

I truly don't see how the two can be separated Lynne, as the purpose of a CPO would be to facilitate a planning decision.  I would also expect the sequence of decision making to be Planning Application first, CPO only if a valid planning consent is in force.

I speak with the insight of having attended training for councillors on the law relating to predetermining decisions, and from what we were told I think you are pushing potential councillors into dangerous waters that may force them on to the sidelines if elected.    If I were a candidate, I wouldn't answer your question.  Sorry

That's interesting Michael I wasn't even aware of it.  However more reading up leads me to wonder if the issue of predetermination has been modified:

http://www.localism-agenda.com/2012/01/abolishing-predetermination-what-it-really-means/

Yes I understand the sequence of events being planning application first then CPO.

Brilliant! So we are being asked to vote for candidates when questions concerning a very contentious issue in Dawlish and what their thoughts are

about it cannot be answered by them! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I asked the question about the compulsory purchase because the Lib Dems refer to it in their election literature. I will quote what they say here, word for word (wouldn't want to misquote) so if anyone has a problem with the electoral legality of what they have been saying they can take it up with the relevant authority if they feel so inclined. So far, other than the Tories one way or the other confirming TDC's (ie the Tory) policy re Warren Farm, the Lib Dems are the only ones to refer to it. This is what they have to say(from leaflets pushed through my letter box)

March 2015 Focus

"Save Warren Farm: Gary Taylor and Martin Wrigley are working hard to help farmer Richard Weeks whose land is at risk from compulsory purchase. Conservative led Teignbridge Council wants Warren Farm for a coastal park - a move which would threaten his family's livelhood. Richard's father started farming this land in 1957. The Weeks family wants to keep Warren Farm - and keep farming."

April 2015 Focus

"Martin and Gary have been working hard helping Richard Weeks defend Warren Farm from the threat of compulsory purchase since 2013. Their fight against this hugely unpopular decision continues - alongside a campaign for more transparency and fairness in local government decision making".

and from the same leaflet

"We will fight hard to prevent the Compulsory Purchase of Warren Farm and will press for developers to deliver more appropriate alternative green spaces closer to new housing schemes alongside othe local needs". 

See Page 5 of the summary.  Has this been superseded?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5959/1896534.pdf

This is what is on page 5

Clarifying the rules on predetermination

The problem is that, as far as I know, this has not been tested in court

we found with the Neighbourhood Plan #1 that all of the fine words counted for nothing, and in the face of over riding government policy "Localism" melted away - I wouldn't put any trust in anything related to that discredited Act.

Wasn't the problem with the Neighbourhood Plan # 1 that it preceded the Localism Act ergo it didn't conform with what the Act required (or something similar to that?).

So, the Lib Dems feel okay about referring to the potential CPOing of Warren Farm but not it seems other candidates. It's a big local issue. Beyond me why other candidates are keeping silent on the matter. 

No Lynne - NPs were introduced as part of the Localism Act.  Our experience in Dawlish was as described, and I learned not to trust the fine words.

I don't know how far the latitude of the Act takes councillors.  It may allow for more discussion but I think a planning lawyer would argue that any councillor on record as saying before the planning meeting "I would never vote for that" should be treated as biased.  It's all interpretation, and I've learned to err on caution

I know NPs were introduced as part of the Localism Act but I was under the belief that the Dawlish NP#1 was a pilot project that commenced before

the Localism Act came into effect.  The Localism Act and the NPPF came into operation after the date when the Dawlish NP#1 Steering Group had already started to meet. The NP#1 was thus formulated before the Teignbridge Local Plan was.  It was all derriere about mammary gland and with no up to date (via the NPPF) planning policy guidelines. That's as how I remember it anyway.    

So, the Independents won't say what they think about Warren Farm - no matter how carefully chosen their words might be (and assuming of course that non of 'em couldn't say or vote on the issue anyway because of having to declare a pecuniary interest). 

Won't vote for 'em then. Simples.       

Localism said people in local communities would decide on matters relating to development.  In reality the Lib Dem government gave real power to the Developers (Presumption in favour of development) and the District Councils as the   architects of Local Plans that over rule Neighbourhood Plans.  Forgive me if I don't rely on fancy words over experience.  It's also a crying shame that the Shutterton development went through against the wishes of everyone locally. Lesson learned, don't make planning matters a forum for party political battles - it doesn't end well.  I say elect good strong local councillors and leave the party politics to Westminster

Pecuniary interests affect all councillors irrespective of their political party affiliation or lack of same.

To answer your point Lynne, you remember correctly.

What's it to be Lynne - Lib Dems who may have shot themselves in the foot by predeterming the issue,  Independents who are keeping their powder dry on it, or Conservatives who will presumably tow the TDC party line?  Or will it come down to killer question 'Do you have a caravan and where do you keep it?'  

"Do you have a caravan (or similar) and where do you keep it".

Because if where you (or any others standing for election) have a caravan (or anything else) stored on Richard Weeks's land then you will have to declare a

pecuniary interest with the consequence that you will have to keep your gob(s) shut both in public and in the council chamber on any issue relating to Warren Farm. And most certainly you will not be allowed to vote on any issue concerning it.

Can't think the Lib Dems will have shot themselves in the foot with what they have been saying. Think they are far too fly for that.

And that's my opinion seeing as you asked. 

I wonder if Richard Weeks is ruing the day his livelihood could be taken away from him because his caravan pitches were let to the wrong people. Incidentally, he will know if there are other potential councillors with a pecuniary interest.  Instead of waiting for them maybe he should declare it. 

So this is the Lib Dem pitch it seems

Parliament - vote for us, We were only 1% behind 5 years ago. Voting for anyone else is a waste of time and let's the Tories in

Local - vote for us, ignore the Independent candidate who was only 1% behind 4 years ago.  Vote for us who were 17% behind last time. We can win this time

That's pretty inconsistent .....

You have a point Dorian. I don't know if the ones that I know of are the full whack or not.  But I hope someone has explained the pecuniary interest consequences to Richard so he knows what he is up against.  

Michael, you are quite correct with your remarks about our pitch for the Westminster election. A vote for any other party in the Newton Abbot constituency other that the Lib Dems is a vote that will help elect a Conservative MP and a Conservative (or Conservative-led) government. That much is plain.

But local issues have changed beyond recognition since the last District and Town Council elections, with new players joining the fray wishing to stand up for (amongst other things) regular people who are tired of being pushed around by the construction lobby and by the Conservative 'support act' at TDC/DTC. The effectiveness of our Independent Dawlish District Councillor has proved little better in this regard over this period, having helped dump an unwelcome additional 350 homes on Dawlish through a bungled attempt (supported by Conservative Dawlish DCs) to switch sites for housing between Shutterton Park and Gatehouse Farm, during the Local Plan process. Some would say it was foolhardy of our District Councillors to have bet against the Shutterton Park developer not winning on appeal; others will, I am sure, have different and divergent opinions as to why adequate safeguards were not put in place to account for such an eventuality. Should the incumbents (and/or their close allies) be trusted with the continuation of governance at Town and District levels? Or is it not time to wipe the slate clean?

Dear Soul,  you and I disagree about little - but in this case I think an excess of enthusiasm for your party cause is making you re-write history

You blame the Independent Candidates for the Shutterton development - which none of us wanted, and yet the facts reveal that the vulnerability of Dawlish to this Developer led application was due to the Liberal Democrats, ironically enough.

Why did the Independents push for Plan Teignbridge to be written without housing at Shutterton?   Because that is what the people of Dawlish wanted.

Why did we lose the Shutterton Appeal?   Because the previous Lib Dem administration at Teignbridge failed in 2001 to write a Local Plan for Dawlish.   This left us with no defence when the developers came knocking.  That is why the safeguards you speak of were not already in place.  And let's not forget that the Lib Dems in government signed up to a National Planning Framework that wrote into law a "Presumption in Favour of Development". 

Locally and Nationally, the Liberal Democrats failed Dawlish.

You say that much has changed in Dawlish since the last town council elections.  A big statement, but is it backed up by evidence?.   Lets look at the empirical evidence available

2013 County Elections - Dawlish result

Conservative 44%, UKIP 30%, Labour 10%, LibDem 8%, Green 7%

Ashcroft Poll of Newton Abbot constituency Voting Intentions, June 2014

Conservative 39%, UKIP 20%, Lib Dem 20%, Labour 13%, Green 7%

By your own reasoning, a Lib Dem vote in Dawlish helps elect a Conservative Councillor.  It will be a bitter pill to swallow for all those who say that Warren Farm is their priority in these elections if they wake up on May 8th and find we have lost an Independent Councillor and gained an extra Conservative.

Last time the Independents won a seat and were only 1% behind in the second.   If we back these candidates on May 7th we will have every chance of 3 Independent District Councillors in Dawlish, and that means 2 less in favour of turning Warren Farm into a Coastal Park.

Are those Independent candidates that you talk about in a position to talk and vote on the issue of Warren Farm at TDC?

@Lynne

I'm rather more worried about the Lib Dem candidates rendering themselves impotent on this matter by "Predetermination" than I am about the fact that a candidate has a pecuniary interest because of her family renting land at Warren Farm for their holiday caravan

Why?

The pecuniary interest can be expunged overnight by the caravan being moved and the rental agreement cancelled.  Pecuniary Interest gone.

However, the Lib Dems face being challenged that they have come to a "Predetermined view" on this matter, which means that legally they cannot take part in any future Teignbridge debate on this issue.  Why?  Because the Localism Act does not remove the predetermination rule, it simply creates a greater tolerance for discussion with the electorate.   It seems to me that to make your work to defend Warren Farm a central plank of your election leaflets delivered around the ward may stretch this tolerance beyond breaking point.  That could not be expunged until the next election four years hence.

I know you think the Lib Dems are " too fly " (your words) to have compromised themselves,  the risk you run is that this may backfire on them.   Add to that the evidence that voting anything other than Independent increases the chance of a Conservative being elected instead.   It is a high wire risk.

I don't know how many people are worried about these issues of Pecuniary Interest and Predetermination.   Surely the most important criterion should be "Which of these people standing do I want to represent me at Teignbridge"  I appreciate that you have come to a view that this should include the two Lib Dems.   I personally think that Independents have done a good job of looking after Dawlish for the past 4 years, and we could do with less party politics at Forde House.

Michael, it was before I moved to Dawlish but didn't I read that you were motivated to become a councillor because you were horrified at the prospect of the Manor being sold off by the council?  How is that different?   Sorry if I'm completely mistaken about that. 

Its different because there was no planning application or changes to the Local Plan required to save the Manor.   It is an arena that is governed by rules, and a key requirement is that no councillor should be taking part in a decision if it affects them financially or they have made it clear that their decision is already made.

Its also different because saving the Manor was carrying out a policy decision made by the people of Dawlish when they voted by 95% in the referendum that the council should commit to a programme of repairs to the building.  The matter had already been taken beyond debate.

I personally wouldn't have made such a point about such matters, but given that Lynne took us down this road with her concerns about pecuniary interests,  it requires us to understand that other factors in the current situation may preclude a councillor taking part in a planning committee meeting.

My feeling remains, vote for the best 3 people who you think will best serve the people of Dawlish across all the issues that the District Council is responsible for.

If it is the Lib Dems VOTE FOR THEM but if it is the Independents VOTE FOR THEM.

(Other candidates are also available)

Don't decide just on this basis of whether a potential councillor has a pecuniary interest in protecting Warren Farm or has shown themselves to be "Predetermined".   We need three District Councillors who will serve the people of Dawlish well for the entire 4 years ahead.

Thanks for the background.  I do think it's risky trying to second guess pecuniary interest or predetermination but either way, if it does come down to CPO or legal challenges on predetermination, it will be a long ride.  

We need 5 actually, Michael. Unless of course you consider that Humphrey Clemens and Roz Prowse are in unassailable positions.

Oh, and on the subject of re-writing history, perhaps you would care to take a look at the minutes of the Overview & Scrutiny meeting of 4th September 2012 in which the decision to move the 350 homes from Shutterton Park to Gatehouse Farm was taken. Proposed by Cllr Petherick, supported by Cllrs Clemens and Prowse - and this despite that fact that: the TDC planning Service Leader advised against it; Shutteron Park had long been included and documented within the 'preferred options' phase of the Local Plan; that the developer's plans were already weill advanced; and that the disposition of a certain Eric Pickles towards "the presumption in favour of sustainable development" would have been very well know.

So to return to your circus analogy, our Independent TDC Councillor and his Conservative support team try an inadvisable, high-wire trick with no practice and no safety net - then come crashing to the ground, injuring themselves and many in the assembled crowd in the process. And for this you feel they deserve our applause? 

I believe the people of Dawlish didn't want houses built at Shutterton - and local district councillors were right to press for this to be stopped.  The Lib Dem government scuppered this by writing planning law that have given too much power to Developers.  The law may have been written by Eric Pickles but it was only passed in parliament by Lib Dem votes.  So I'd rather vote for people that fought to the end for what people in Dawlish wanted.

Why did we end up with housing designation both east and west of the A379?  Because the Inspector reviewing the draft Neighbourhood Plan insisted on it, saying the numbers proposed for Dawlish were too low.  This guidance then had to be include in Plan Teignbridge.  Another gift of the "Localism" Act brought in by the Lib Dems in government

So are saying that the people of Dawlish supported this high-risk strategy? Did anyone explain the consequences?

Heads we would have 350 homes where we would prefer them.

Tails, we would have 350 homes where we would prefer them - and another 350 homes where we did not want them in the first place, thank you?

Oh, please, bring on the jugglers...

Hello Soul

I appreciate elections are stressful times, but I hope we can keep this at the level of robust debate and not sarcasm

Comments like "Oh please bring on the jugglers" suggests we are moving towards the bad old ways of Dot Com, which I thought we all wanted to leave behind

Yes, I do believe that the people of Dawlish supported the strategy.  In fact, I know they did because the District Council was trying to adjust the draft Plan Teignbridge to reflect what the lengthy public consultation for the Neighbourhood Plan#1 said Dawlish people wanted.  No houses on the Shutterton Site.

Maybe it was wrong not to anticipate that "Localism" meant that what the local people wanted would be overturned by an Inspector who decided that 900 houses were not enough and added in the extra 350 houses.

If the District Councillors made a mistake in under-estimating the level of double speak involved in "Localism" they were in good company.   The Teignbridge meeting you complain of was actually chaired by a Lib Dem district councillor, and 7 of the people present were Lib Dems.  Not a single one of these people is recorded as having voted against the decision.   I can't help but think that if it was as "High Risk" as you say, those Lib Dems should be on record as disagreeing with the decision.

Shall we leave it there?  Let the people in the ward decide who they want to vote for on May 7th.   There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days on who to vote for, maybe a little reflection time would now be a good thing

Let's metaphorically shake hands,  Michael

The following email addresses and telephone numbers are all already in the public domain either via election literature or via The Town Crier  so I

have no problem with putting them on here.

If you want to try and glean any idea of where the following five candidates stand on the Warren Farm issue then you might

like to contact them direct.

Suggested questions are:

1.Do they think Warren Farm should be compulsory purchased or not?

and

2.if elected are they aware of any reason(s) whereby they would have to declare a pecuniary interest which would then take away their right to 

speak and vote on the matter.  

Beware of any b/s about having to listen to arguments. I think we all know that the pro and con arguments have already been aired in public.

Independent Candidates:

John Petherick. Tel: 01626 864655  petherickjohn@gmail.com

Linda Petherick Tel: 01626 864655  lindapethrick@gmail.com

Mary Lowther  Tel: 01626 862011   mklowther@btinternet.com

Lib Dem Candidates:

Gary Taylor Tel: 07712 527101   jitb2b@aol.com

Martin Wrigley Tel: 01626 891277 martin.wrigley@gmail.com 

'Beware of any b/s about having to listen to arguments'.  Lynne, if you look at guidance notes about predetermination you will see that is precisely what councillors should be saying. Predisposed yes, predetermined no. Tread carefully or your quest for certainty could backfire on Mr Weeks in the long run.  

Well, somehow or the other I and others(?) need some indication (an indication of a predisposition perhaps?) as to where the candidates stand on this matter. 

(Not forgetting of course that even if supportive of his cause, if elected,  and they then have to declare a pecuniary interest, then in terms of speaking on and voting on his behalf they would be basically null and void).

Michael, as you have indicated further above, you and I do generally disagree about little. On the matter of why we find ourselves with 350 more homes in Dawlish than was (and remains) indicated in the Teignbridge Local Plan, it is clear we are poles apart.

I also consider much of what you have written to justify the position you have taken as quite irrelevant to the facts. These were that the proposal was made to switch sites by our single Independent Councillor, supported by 2 of our Conservative Councillors with the motion carried by 13 votes for to none against. Other than the 3 Councillors above (Petherick, Clemens and Prowse) the minutes do not record who else voted for the motion but clearly there were 11 Councillors who did not vote. You might expect that the 2 other Conservative Dawlish District Councillors present (Hockin and Price) would also have voted in favour, but this - and almost all of what you have written above - is conjecture.

As to the evidence that you say you know of which would justify the housing allocation switch from DA1 Shutterton Park to DA2 north of Secmaton Lane, please tell us - just how many people in the Secmaton Lane area indicated they wanted that change?

This incautious venture went wrong not because of the "Localism Act" under whose wheels you appear to wish to thrown yourself, but because simple procedures were not followed. For this I believe our District Councillors should be held to account.

But as for shaking hands, Michael, yes - I would be happy to do so. On a neutral doorstep, perhaps?

Or in a pub maybe?

Either way, I'm clear that the District Councillors did the right thing over defending Shutterton, and were let down by a system that is now preloaded to deliver sites for Developers.  But lets face it, we've debated the life out of that issue over the past few days.

I hope that people think hard about the choices available on May 7th.   I can't see the Lib Dems winning in Central North East Dawlish, but they can take enough votes to help the Independents lose.

Lord alone knows what will happen in the other ward, it seems there that the most likely outcome is Two Conservatives or One Conservative and One UKIP.  yikes.

Who can vote at the meetings?

Looking at the minutes of the Town Council meeting on this barn conversion appeal:

Those present:

Cllrs Vickery, Bloomfield, Almond, M Lowther, Prowse,

Others present: Clemens, Clayson (as Clerk)

Absent: Fenne, Swift. 

If Mary Lowther couldn't vote, who did?  The minutes say that it was resolved on the casting vote of the Chairman so was there a split decision? 

Dorian, I wasn't there but I imagine that the scenario was this.

There were five councillors present who were members of the planning committee.

When the item concerning the barn conversion at Warren Farm came up Mary Lowther had to  leave the room and not vote.

That left four councillors able to vote.

Two Conservative, Two Independent. The Chair of the Planning Committee would have the casting vote in the event of a tie.

So I'd say it a pretty certain bet that the two Conservatives voted against the motion (remember the Conservative policy on the future of Warren Farm!) and the two Independents voted for the motion. As the vote was tied the casting vote of the Chair decided the outcome. 

Perhaps someone who was at that planning meeting could confirm or otherwise what I have just outlined above. 

PS On the matter of Dawlish South West ward - I happen to know the UKIP candidate's thoughts on the Warren Farm issue. Don't think he takes kindly to CPOs....  

If your voting scenario is correct and Gregory Fenne had been at that meeting, it's very probable the vote on Mr Weeks' appeal would have gone against him.   So maybe your questions should also include the likelihood of them turning up and voting in the first place.

At that particular meeting the Shutterton plans, Warren Farm and Mr Nance's Statue of Happiness were all discussed, all of which have featured prolifically on here (Shell Cove House too).   At the risk of not letting sleeping dogs lie, in my opinion it's an irrefutable obligation for council committee members to attend, debate and vote at council meetings.   Yes there may be occasions when it's not possible, but that should be the exception. 

Here we go again! I suppose we should not be surprised that Dorian is carrying on where her/his buddy Mrs C left off! As I have said before but will say again, not all Councillors are retired or so wealthy that they do not have to work to pay their bills!  It is interesting that the two of us not present at that meeting both work for a living! I was working in Manchester on the day in question, having got there at 9pm the previous evening following a full working day in Exeter. I then attended three meetings on the Thursday, arriving home at 20.45, well after the start of the planning meeting! As usual, I was very professional and sent my apologies. Have you ever wondered why local councils are predominantly made up of the retired?  Now......................go and get a life! I have! 

On the other hand Lynne, Gregory Fenne's regular absence could be to your advantage.   Out of the last 12 planning meetings here's the attendance of those standing:

Almond 11

Bloomfield 7

G Fenne 2

M Lowther 6

R Prowse 8

L Petherick 2

J Petherick 3

I see he's standing again as a Conservative candidate in South-West ward for the town council elections, and someone by the name of

Angela Fenne and of the same address as Greg, is standing as a Conservative candidate for Central ward. 

But to return to the Warren Farm saga - I've just been looking at the names of the nominees and seconders of the candidates. Interestingly I see that 

someone I saw with my own mince pies signing the Save Warren Farm petition at the Christmas market has put her name in support of one of the

Conservative candidates standing for election to the town council.

The trouble is most people will happily sign a petition without digging deeper into the politics of it.  It will be interesting to see how many of those that did sign the petition will put their X next to a Lib Dem candidate. 

and on these pecuniary interest/determination of planning applications rules.

Should TDC sometime in the future put in a planning application to turn Warren Farm into a coastal park Sangs then that planning application

will go out for consultation and one of the consultees will be Dawlish Town Council.

Now, supposing, just supposing, that sitting on the Dawlish Town Council planning committee are councillors who, previous to their becoming

councillors in May 2015, had signed the Save Warren Farm petition.

Would they, be dint of having signed that petition, be obliged not to speak and vote on that planning application because by their having signed the petition they would have committed predetermination? 

It will be very interesting, Dorian. I hope also, that as well as the Warren Farm issue, voters will consider our proposals to ensure that the burden of housing planned for Dawlish (1,888 houses - and counting) brings with it the promised services (community facilities, schools, surgeries) infrastructure (the new link road for instance) and open spaces (including appropriate SANGS) before they put an X in any other box.

BTW, thanks for posting the attendance record of DTC planning committee members now standing for re-election (with presumably a wish to carry on as before). Say what you now wish about Margaret Swift, she at least had the good grace to stand down when other commitments got in the way of her duties.

@soul

you speak of "our proposals". That suggests you are one of the Lib Dem candidates

Have I misunderstood you?  If so, I apologise, but that is how it increasingly comes across.

If you are a candidate, I think you should post under your name, not a pseudonym.

You are quite right to point this out, Michael. The Liberal Democrat proposals do not necessarily represent the views of the membership of the SOUL of Dawlish group. This will be made clear in future postings.

Sounds like a politician's answe SoD.  Can you give a straight answer - are you a LibDem candidate? 

Also, as 'SoulofDawlish' are you saying you are posting as a group or as an individual? 

Yes.

As an individual.

It was hardly rocket surgery...

Rocket science, OurSoul?

@Mcjrpc, and as a paid up member of both organisations.

Or brain science...

Or brain salad?

How much does it cost to join the two organisations?

And there you were only a few posts ago making your sarcastic snipes at MC, having posted this previously:

I find the sniping and unfair criticism levelled on this website at unpaid public servants, quite reprehensible. When such behaviour is carried out from beneath a cloak of anonymity, I consider it also cowardly.

LibDem speaks with forked tongue shock.   Oh well there goes my tactical vote. 

Please can we keep this clear of Dot Com type arguments, and focus on what's important

@SoulofDawlish  you have confirmed that you are a candidate in the elections

I really think it important therefore that you post under your real name, so that readers can associate the man with the opinion.   It just isn't right in my view that someone who is standing in an election trys to influence public perception of the issues at stake from behind a pseudonym

er.....can I make a polite request please?

Can one of  you start a new thread. This one is getting inordinately long and my in-box is getting full to overflowing.

Ta.

Very good, Dorian. However I believe all the points made above in discussion with MC were fair.

I certainly haven't taken offence at anything you've written Soul

However, I do think it is wrong for you to continue to ignore a very polite request for you to declare your true identity on this site.  You cannot, in my view, stand in an election whilst trying to influence the public view on important matters from behind a pseudonym.

You have admitted you are a Lib Dem candidate in the election, it shouldn't be necessary to press you as to which one you are.  

Michael, it didn't seem to me that you had asked for a declaration, however rather than split hairs, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of transparency (and in the interests also of bringing forward the prospect of having discussions over a pint with you at some point in the near future) I will henceforth be using my own name on posts.

Gary Taylor

i am at a loss to understand why Gary Taylor has been bullied into revealing his name when most of the other cowards that post on here do not do so. Just because MC chose to do so is his choice and, as he said, only his opinion. This is the worst case of bullying I have seen on here and that really is saying something. 

Thanks for clarifying that Gary, Bob and I will look forward to that drink after the elections.   I'm sure you're a busy man for the next two weeks.

@Margaret.   For me this was a simple case of ethics.  If you are a Candidate in a live election and are posting comments on social media criticising the record of one of your opponents, it is wrong to do this anonymously.   Gary clearly hadn't thought this particular dimension through, and assumed it was ok to continue posting in the manner he had done before he was a Candidate.     It doesn't sound to me like he has taken offence at me pressing him on this point, and I know him well enough to appreciate he would have told me if he disagreed.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity would know that.   Good on both of you for dealing with it professionally and without histrionics.  We need more on that on this forum.

Sorry Michaeal but bullying is bullying no matter what the reason. You could eaily have private messaged him to put that view point forward and then left it to him to decide. Your chosen avenue was overt bullying.

@Margaret. I'm happy to leave it to people reading this site to come to their own opinion as to whether this was bullying behaviour or a reasonable challenge that has been accepted in good part by the other person concerned.

As it happens, I met Gary out delivering his leaflets an hour ago, and we've agreed a pint at the Swan after the elections, so I think our friendship remains in good health 

Hang on a minute.  Based on what Michael Clayson has just posted it's clear SoulofDawlish aka Gary Taylor and MC already know each other 'in real life'?   So Gary Taylor has been posting here with the advantage of knowing that MC doesn't know who he is?   And Margaret Swift has the front to call anonymous posters 'cowards' and MC a 'bully'?   How about Gary Taylor privately emailing Michael Clayson to reveal his identy?     And these people ask us to trust them.

Unlike Ms Swift, I didn't think Gary was being a coward. 

OurSoulofDawlish post above has a familiar ring to it!

I'm glad to hear it Michael! 

OK, so back to the thread. And for anyone who did not pick up a copy of this week's Gazette (35p from any good Dawlish retailer - and, yes, I did buy a copy for my mum) here's the full version of the letter I submitted to the editor:

Does every man have his price?

In the battle between Teignbridge Councillor Humphrey Clemens and farmer Richard Weeks and his supporters (Gazette, 15th April) the answer is made clear.

A farmer himself, Cllr Clemens shows little regard for the position of Mr Weeks and his farming family. He also insults the intelligence of those wishing to see the family land at Warren Farm saved from the threat of compulsory purchase for SANGS (suitable alternative natural green space) through his patently absurd claims about the consequences of selecting other, more appropriate sites.

Cllr Clemens drops a fat hint about Teignbridge District Council’s proposed settlement price for Warren Farm, enough to “probably buy twice the acreage of good agricultural land elsewhere” he writes. Whether other Grade 1 farmland is available nearby is questionable – however this rather indiscreet announcement reveals that Warren Farm represents very poor value for money as SANGS for Dawlish tax-paying residents.

The land also falls some 11 hectares (31 acres) short of that required under EU legislation.

Helpfully, the calculation for SANGS can be found in the S106 legal agreement drawn up for Shutterton Park. This 350-home Dawlish development site was won on appeal, following an ill-conceived and mishandled attempt by Dawlish District Councillors to switch housing allocations, midway through the Teignbridge Local Plan process.

Now deemed a ‘windfall’ site, these 350 additional houses are unfortunately excluded from the official Local Plan total – however, as with other new developments close to Dawlish Warren and the Exe estuary, they do all count towards SANGS.

So, including a 6.24 hectares requirement for Shutterton Park, the SANGS needed in Dawlish stands at over 33 hectares (83 acres).

By contrast, Warren Farm would yield just 21 hectares (52 acres).

And – as Richard Weeks has maintained from the start – it is not for sale.

..................................................................................................................

That's all folks. Hope to see you out on the campaign trail.

Gary Taylor

SoulofDawlish - it's a shame you didn't have the good sense to stop posting anonymously as soon as your nomination was published but more importantly how are you now going to deal with the inevitable accusations of predetermination on Warren Farm when your unequivocal views are in the public domain?

Robustly.

Gary Taylor

And of course the same could be levelled at Humphrey Clemens whose letter in the Gazette demonstrates a foregone conclusion in his mind too. Any chance Manor Farm in Holcombe would be a suitable site for SANGS? 

Dorian - you took those words above straight from my mouth!

Precisely!

How can Humphrey Clemens (who not only is a member of TDC planning committe but chairs it!) advocate TDC's policy re Warren Farm which 

would necessitate a planning application without his laying himself wide open to accusations of predetermination?

Go on then someone - explain. 

and, and, given as how it seems to me it is in his interest that any planning application for Warren Farm to be turned into a

coastal park Sangs should be successful, might he not also have a pecuniary interest to declare as well?

(I've heard it alleged that that some of the land he farms over Holcombe way was (could be again?) one of the other original options for Sangs so if Warren Farm were to fall through TDC would have to look again at their options, would they not?) .    

So you're saying Clemens' land is one of the other three SANGS options??  Seriously? 

Was originally considered. (and I don't think it is his land in the sense that he owns it, I believe he rents it

from Devon County Council.) 

I'll try and find the link that will give us the TDC document showing the options that were considered.   

see option 4 on page 24 

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37826&p=0

and this is an extract from The Save Warren Farm petition

Alternatively, Cllr Humphrey Clemens is a tenant farmer on farmland owned by Devon County Council, part of which is on the coast adjacent to Smugglers' Inn, and has excellent, possibly even better coastal views than Warren Farm. This land is already owned by Devon C.C., so should be a much cheaper option, and would have the added benefit of attracting people away from the Dawlish Warren nature reserve, and thereby protecting it.

Well the cheek of the man!  I was being facetious when I suggested his land.  He surely has a conflict of interests!  It certainly passed me by, I wonder if the rest of Joe Public are aware.  Meanwhile on the anti-Conservative election trail I'd be milking that nugget for all its worth. 

Fancy writing a letter to the Gazette?

If anyone out there is considering such an action, I would strongly caution against any reference to the land Cllr Clemens has farmed as his own. It is not in his ownership, as the Register of Interests clearly shows:

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=34753&p=0

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=34753&p=0

but even as someone who rents (therefore doesn't own) land that was once considered as a possible Sangs site wouldn't he still have a pecuniary

interest in the outcome of any planning application to turn Warren Farm into a Sangs?  

Ownership of the land is surely irrelevant.  Whose pecuniary interest is most affected by the outcome of this decision - Mary Lowther and her caravan pitch or Humphrey Clemens and his livelihood?

There's no conjecture - Cllr Clemens has declared a pecuniary interest.  Lynne are you sure it's the same land as Option 4?  

Were the SANGS options put to a vote of the TDC Planning Committee?    Is/was the housing land and the nearby Option 2 land in the same ownership? 

And a propos of what was being discussed a few days ago:

http://publicsectorblog.practicallaw.com/first-conviction-of-a-councillor-under-the-localism-act-2011/

@Mcjrpc

Thanks for that link - it makes for interesting reading.

1. You say that Cllr Clemens has declared a pecuniary interest. Has he? When? Where? Are you perhaps confusing his having  to declare a pecuniary interest with his having listed renting land from DCC on TDC's register of interests? The two interests/lists whatever you want to call them are not the same you see. My argument is that by dint of his renting land that was (could be again?) a potential Sangs site he has to declare a pecuniary interest in any planning applications concerning other land becoming Sangs land and that of course includes Warren Farm.

2. According to that TDC link I gave which shows the 4 original options - the land comprising option 4 was/is in three ownerships. I believe one of those ownerships to be that of Devon County Council. Cllr Clemens rents land from DCC in the area of Dawlish where option 4 is sited. I have heard it alleged that some of that land he rents from DCC formed part of the Option 4 Sangs. If that is the case then, as I see it, he has a pecuniary interest to declare in any planning application concerning turning Warren Farm into a coastal park Sangs. But by his public comments of late he may anyway have transgressed the predetermination of planning applications rule. Should he still be a member of TDC's planning committee after the local elections then it will be interesting to see whether or not he is present for any planning application debates/votes concerning Warren Farm's future.       

3. The Sangs options were not put to a vote of the planning committee. The decision to go for the Warren Farm option was made by the TDC Executive councillors back in 2013. However, there will need to be a planning application submitted sometime in the (near?) future requesting that Warren Farm be changed into a coastal park.

4. Option 2 land - according to the TDC report on the Sangs options that land, in 2013, was in two principal ownerships. What the situation is today I do not know.  

Hi Lynne - thanks for the info.  I'm trying to keep up but you have a much better handle on this than me.

1.  I'm not confusing pecuniary interest with predetermination but I might be confusing it with Register of Interests.  I don't know the nuances but I was observing that his rental of the land has been declared, and if it is Option 4 land then an automatic pecuniary interest must surely exist.  This led me to:

2. It needs to be clarified for sure that it's one and the same piece of land.  If it's only alleged or in the area of Option 4, it's a red herring.  I agree about predetermination, but a few carefully chosen words in public to counterbalance what he's previously said could address that's legally.  However that's a far cry from the court of public opinion and if all this is true, fair minded people will judge him harshly.  It's a gift to his opponents. 

3.  So if it is the same land but it wasn't voted on by Planning, can it be said he hasn't had any official involvement so far?  I had a quick look and he's not on the Executive Committee.   When it does come before Plannning and if he's still on the Committee I would expect him to exclude himself.  (What's the chances he would forego that position for another Conservative!) It would be interesting to know if the planning appeal on the barn conversion is regarded as an entirely separate matter and whether he is eligible to vote on that.  By the way, do you know if he's right about it opening the door to wider development not just agricultural housing? 

4.  I have it in my head that the landowner at Option 2 also owns the nearby housing land and I am indignant that instead of it being the obvious SANGS it's earmarked for more housing devlopment, at the expense of Warren Farm.  I wanted to check that that is the case and not just Chinese Whispers.

I had another look at the SWOT analysis of the Options. It is the only option where his views were known beforehand and yet it's not being factored in. The preferred choice should be made all things considered (and adjusted as necessary) not simply because it offers a handy circuit or more interesting landscape.   We are talking about land that is not currently enjoyed by the public, we will not miss a view we never had in the first place.

1. Was any of the land that Cllr C rents from DCC included in the option 4 Sangs? I can only refer you and others to what is written on the Save Warren Farm petition. If there was/is anything incorrect about that statement I am sure action to get it removed would have taken place by now.

from The Save Warren Farm petition

Alternatively, Cllr Humphrey Clemens is a tenant farmer on farmland owned by Devon County Council, part of which is on the coast adjacent to Smugglers' Inn, and has excellent, possibly even better coastal views than Warren Farm. This land is already owned by Devon C.C., so should be a much cheaper option, and would have the added benefit of attracting people away from the Dawlish Warren nature reserve, and thereby protecting it.

2. Planning committee - yes all the councillors on the planning committee have named substitutes who can sit in for them when, for one reason or another, they cannot attend themselves. Clever eh?

3. The original planning application re the barn conversion didn't go to TDC's planning committee. It was a delegated decision made by a planning officer. As the refusal has now been Appealed by Richard Weeks it is now for the Planning Inspector (PI) to make the final decision.

4. I'm not saying that Cllr C has been officially involved so far as nothing has gone to planning committee concerning Warren Farm. I am flagging up that he might have an issue when/if it does.

5. Suppose, just suppose that the PI comes down in favour of the barn conversion. Perhaps a way of preventing any further houses being built on Warren farm land would be to say that  the barn conversion should have an agricultural tie attached to it and ditto any further applications for dwellings there. Just a thought - but I am not a planner let alone a planning inspector.

6. Kaz might be able to help with the land ownership issue (but Kaz has gone very quiet of late.) 

If I may Mcjrpc,

Cllr Clemens has made some pretty wild claims about what would happen if Teignbridge DC's vision for Warren Farm runs into the buffers (either through public pressure or because the compulsory purchase of the farm may not be supported legally). What I can tell you is that the rules governing the conversions of agricultural dwellings* are very strict. 

No precedent for housing would be set by such an approval and, as Cllr Clemens will know, speculative applications for sites outside the Teignbridge Local Plan housing allocation areas - especially those with enhanced protection due to their landscape value or coastal proximity - stand almost no chance of being successful.

One final point is that Cllr Clemens accuses the Lib Dems of wanting to throw out the Local Plan if elected. It has been a bitter pill for many to swallow, however we do recognise that it is on balance in the public interest to now abide by the plan - and we have made it quite clear that will will not try to wind back the clock to overturn it.

That does not mean we would not hold the developers' feet to the fire to maintain the level of affordable homes proposed, nor that we would go soft on them on vital infrastructure such as the planned link road between Gatehouse Farm and the Sainsbury's roundabout. The plan contains provision for "at least" 12,400 houses ('windfall' sites were sadly excluded by the Conservatives) and we will push hard to keep this figure pegged back to the lowest possible level.

Gary Taylor

@Mcjrpc,

My apologies but (above*) that should be agricultural buildings not agricultural dwellings.

I would also like to clarify that the application and the appeal are for a dwelling to house Mr Weeks's son under prior approval as required by Class MB.2(1) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (“the 1995 Order”). I would further like to point out that the relaxation of the planning regualtions in 2013 allows for the conversion of redundant farm buildings into dwellings with certain restrictions, but with no agricultural tie.

Thus the proposed house would have a higher value on the open market - but as with Warren Farm - it is not for sale.

Gary Taylor

I typed in 'Agricultural buildings conversion to dwellings' and then hit the search button.

This is what I got.

Thanks Lynne.

So the changes came into effect on 6th April 2014 and were relevant to agricultural buildings built before 20th March 2013.

An application for development under Permitted Development at Warren Farm would appear to be guided by the following:

"even though owners will not need to apply for planning consent, they will still have to notify their local council to determine if prior approval will be needed relating to the issues listed below:

• Transport and highways impacts of the development

• Noise impacts of the development

• Contamination risks on the site

• Flooding risks on the site

• Design or external appearance of the building

• And a final catchall – whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a house.

It’s also worth noting that the new rights won’t be available to businesses that have used other Permitted Development rights to build or extend agricultural buildings since 20 March 2013.

In addition, those utilising the new residential rights will also not be able to benefit from Permitted Development Rights to construct or extend an agricultural building for the following 10 years."

I will make no comment on the above, however I would now question why the Dawlish Town Council saw it fit to qualify their response to the appeal against refusal in the following terms:

"It was RESOLVED on the casting vote of the Chairman to advise the Planning Inspector that this council does not object to the proposed development provided that the Applicant is able to satisfy the Inspector that it is necessary for the future viability of the farm business."

While the irony of the viability question will not be lost on those following this unhappy saga and while it would seem that the applicant would be perfectly able to satisfy the requirement laid down by DTC for their support, surely their resolution is irrelevant both in planning terms and to the case before the Inspector, which is expected to be judged on the qualifications above?

Gary Taylor

Hi Gary

I think you are making a common mistake ( So common that I too used to think this ) that the Town Council committee is a mini version of the District Committee and has to make a determination of each issue by strictly weighing the question in hand against detailed consideration of the relevant planning laws.

The true function is to be a Consultee giving the benefit to the District Planning Committee (Or Appeal Inspector) of the local sentiment about an application.  In the opinion of the elected members would this be a good change, benefiting the exisiting population and the built environment of Dawlish?

It's helpful to express this in planning terms as it means that we are all speaking the same language but crucially the committee members do not need to experts in what the planning law would construe as a valid objection - that is a matter for the planning service at Teignbridge. 

it would be near impossible for our town council to remain up to date on every twist and turn of planning regulations without employing dedicated staff, and completely impossible for smaller village councils that rely on the services of one very part-time clerk to advise them at meetings.

So, in this particular case the discussion was around whether creating a residential space in open countryside would be a welcome change.  The view of the elected members was that in general terms the answer would be NO, but they would not object if it was necessary for the viability of the farm.  That seems a reasonable position.

I would offer this advice to anyone serving on the town council planning committee in future.  Don't tie yourself up in knots trying to decide if your views on an application are in line with planning rules.   Just give your honest opinion as to whether the proposed change is beneficial or not.

Thank you for your explanation, Michael - and for your sound advice to anyone who may serve (or may wish to serve) on a Parish or Town Council in the future. 

Gary Taylor

PS And, for what it's worth, in reflecting what I believe would be the opinion of a very large number of the people in Dawlish, I consider the committee - on balance - got it right.

Thread continues here https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/44386