A bit of background before I post part of the article that is in today's Dawlish Gazette.
Followers of the planned future development of Dawlish may remember that some two years or so ago lots of time, effort, money and public involvement eventually produced the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan - a blueprint for how Dawlish should be developed in the future.
Now, it turns out that there were, and are, a lot of whys and wherefores attached to what was produced and now it seems there is another - and that concerns the proposed country/community park at the Warren.
I remember thinking to myself at the time that the idea became public knowledge, that there was an assumption that whoever it was who owned the land would be prepared to sell it to TDC in order for this park to be developed and what would happen if that person didn't wish to sell?Then I didn't give the idea any more thought as I decided that whoever owned it had already made clear to TDC that the land was up for sale if they wished to buy it.
Now, unless I've got the wrong end of the stick here (and I haven't read the whole article yet I have to admit) it seems that the landowner in question indeed has no wish to sell his land.
Oops! So, what now then?
Here's the article in question:
"Community park ‘will force me out of business’ claims farmer
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
DAWLISH farmer Richard Weekes has claimed it is ‘morally wrong’ for Teignbridge Council to be thinking about forcing him out of business so his land can become a £2.5 million community coastal park.
The authority is considering ways of offsetting the loss of open land in and around the Exe estuary and Dawlish Warren as development steps up in the coming years.
It has to provide Sustainable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGS) with developers required to contribute £350 for each property they build within 10km of the internationally important wildlife habitat."
Haven't seen the full article either but you'd think TDC would have had an indication from him prior to announcing its plans, maybe he's digging in now as a way of upping his price?
Sounds to me like the incompetents at TDC have dug yet another hole for themselves that they cant get out of and are now trying to put the blame on Mr Weeks.
Hope Richard stands his ground no pun intended and tells them where to get off .
How can they buy land in any case, when they are having to sell assets to pay for there inabillity to provide a service fit for purpose.
Time for a few management resignations wouldnt you say Mr Christophers
Here is an extract from TDC's report dated May 2013 concerning possible SANG sites in and around Dawlish. This extract refers to the Dawlish Warren coastal park option. (I've put in bold the really relevant bit)
"57.3 % (15.13 hectares) of the site is grade 1 agricultural land
Potential risk of unstable ground along the cliffs
Land believed to be in five principal ownerships, including part controlled by the local
authority. It is understood that one landowner has indicated the land is not available
Ownership of part of the site is not known (1.3 hectare rectangular field in the north
Further work is needed to clarify the potential for the delivery of SANGS and its
Just as well the TDC isn't a Bakery, cause if it was everything coming out would be half baked!
I thought all this localism and Dawlish neighbourhood plan had been rejected as incomplete and not acceptable by Eric Pickles and his department when he overturned the Shutterton Park planning rejection made by TDC.
If so then why are TDC wasting even more money by keep banging on about it.
They should stick to something there half good at like emptying the bins
@FB - believe the Shutterton Park planning Appeal was upheld on the basis that there was no good planning reason why it had been refused in the first place and that therefore there was no good planning reason why the Appeal should be rejected.
I think one of the reasons given for upholding the Appeal was that TDC did not have (possibly still does not have?) a supply of land that would enable the next five years' housing need within the TDC area to be met.
A new SANG is needed because of the impact of extra residents and their dogs etc on places like the Dawlish Warren nature reserve. As the new house building will go ahead irrespective of what was outlined in the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan it follows that TDC needs to find a SANG within the parish of Dawlish.
(and if I am wrong on any of that I'd be pleased to be corrected).
Have now got a hard copy of the Dawlish Gazette. This is the rest of the article following on from what I posted above.
“............Mr Weekes’ Warren Farm has been identified by the council as suitable for a 51 acre park where people could exercise their dogs and enjoy a walk in the open air. A planning application could be submitted this month, as soon as the 20 year Plan Teignbridge is approved by the Planning Inspectorate.
Last week members of the council’s executive committee met to receive a progress update from deputy chief executive Phil Shears. He was quizzed by Mr Weekes who claimed he had only met once with the council and that if the scheme went ahead it would rob him of a third of his land, thereby rendering the business no longer viable. He said: ’Has the council taken independent legal adv ice on the validity of a compulsory purchase order for land at Warren Farm when other sites appear to be available?’.
Mr Shears denied a CPO was being sought at this stage and said: ’We’d hope to get through this with a negotiated settlement with you’. Mr Weekes replied: ‘I do feel it’s morally wrong when other sites are available’.
Later in the meeting Mr Shears said a creation of a SANGS was a ‘positive step’ for the protection of Dawlish Warren although he conceded that some traders there were ‘confused’ by the concept. He acknowledged that ‘a range of views’ had been expressed but told the meeting: ‘No proposal is going to make everyone happy’.
Dawlish member Cllr Rosalind Prowse described the issue as a ‘very difficult one’ as it affected peoples’ livelihoods and the environment.
Leader Cllr Jeremy Christophers agreed to note progress so far but ordered that officers hold further talks with Mr Weekes. ‘One meeting is not sufficient’ he said.
Would seem more sensible to CPO the Shutterton Park site for their SANGS and kill two birds with one stone.
Perhaps one of the coucillors named above would care to explain why this would not be a better plan. In realality it would be a far better site for such due to being nearer to the mass house building up Secmanton.
Would also like to see where the money to CPO anything is coming from, or is it just another one of Cllr Prowse's daydream schemes.
As said before the old school at TDC have lost the plot and need to butt out like they did from DTC
If anyone would like to know more about the sites considered by TDC for a SANG in Dawlish then click on this link
Note there were 4 sites considered: 1.Langdon Farm; 2. Eastdon Wood; 3. Land near Dawlish Warren; 4.Land east of Teignmouth Road.
The land near Dawlish Warren site is TDC's preferred site.
Go to page 11 and then scroll down to see more about each site.
Note that at 8.1 on page 30 the document mentions Compulsory Purchase Orders.
Thanks Lynne had a quick read through and what a load of abbrevaited dribble the whole document is.
The solution to the issue seems simple though.
Stop all further house building and tell Pickles this is due to not having the money to CPO enough land for SANGS
A couple of other interesting points how far from the Warren and Exe Estuary is the development of Secmanton because if its less than 10 kilometres it shouldnt be happening anyway. Also hope the Warren tourism people are aware that this document insights TDCs and others wish to reduce tourist visits to the Warren area.
Has anyone heard anything more about the proposed Coastal Park at Warren Farm? People talk about the housing, but not the poor farmer who was to be affected, what is happening, anyone know?
"Poor farmer"? There's no such thing! :-)
No serious, if you have a small farm and then 1/3 taken off of you it will have a big impact your business. What are the Air Show to do as his field is used for parking and all the monies taken go towards the next years show? I can really see Teignbridge running or leasing the car park field for the day, charging and donating the monies to the Dawlish Air Show. If it becomes a SANG then that might be the end of car parking, camping and car boot sales on the site, has anyone asked Teignbridge if these things can carry on, as they bring money to Dawlish. Now the local plan is adopted maybe the residents will finally find out what is going on and how the changes will affect us.
Reading the document the farmer said from the outset that he's unwilling to sell. Imagine having the prospect of a compulsory purchase order hanging over you while all this is figured out, you couldn't make any long term plans or investment. Meanwhile a landowner in Cockwood wants to sell his 400 acres. Sod's law.
That aside, I'm not sure that land will provide adequate parking for the Airshow in future. The road into Dawlish was at a standstill and people missed the start of it because they were stuck in the jams. I feel a bit sorry for Starcross which will bear the brunt of all this development in Dawlish.
No probs for Starcross Mcjprc - I was at quite a few public meetings concerning the new houses planned to be built in Dawlish where the planners said words to the effect of that the present A379 would not be adversely affected by extra traffic because the new houses would be sited near to where there are rail stations and bus stops and the people in the new houses would use the train or the bus and not cars.
I joke not.
Now, I am all for people using public transport, especially trains, but let's be realistic shall we?
Yeah right. What's the likelihood those planners went to the meetings by public transport.
So lets have a Hong Kong style revolution and tell TDC to go to hell. Look at Chudleigh local plan 175 houses / 30% affordable. TDC planning dept now says delveloper wants 230 houses / 20% affordable and some business units as the plan is not viable and the planning dept leader says planning commitee cannot refuse as it will go to appeal and that will cost the council ( thats us ) money.
So what is the local plan worth, answers on the back of a postage stamp.
In addition where are the open spaces going to be for the children to play in when they develop the Secmaton site. Is any parent going to let their children walk to Dawlish Warren or Sandy Lane for open space to play.
Here is the link for all 4 options for SANGS and option 1 would have met with what Ken was on about as all roads lead to it. http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37826&p=0. Maybe if the Coastal Park falls through this might be a possible option. What do people think?
My understanding is that Richards land is quite spread out over approx 2 miles so I wonder if the council do compulsory purchase why on earth couldnt Richard just by some of the land that's for sale off Exeter road, alternatively County council own about 150 acres off Port Road very close to Richards existing land by Saint Marys why can't they offer a swap?
The fact is Mr Weekes is able to earn non farming income from the site due to its prime position, and it is also grade 1 land. Even if the Council were to swap land, which is a good idea, could they actually provide replacement grade 1 land, as most around here is grade 3 due to the sandy soil? It still leaves the problem though that the new land would be off the tourist trail and unsuitable for carboot sales etc. which gives him additional income. The trouble is that farmers are not just farmers now in todays world, due to supermarkets driving down prices as they have the monopoly and even those who don't supply them directly must be affected by prices paid at market and the cheapness of foreign imports. Life is not so simple now hence why so many farmers are being forced to diversify just to survive. Why do you think so many farmers have given up, small scale farming has never been easy and in recent years it has just got a lot harder because of external pressures beyond their control. So if he loses his land his potential income is bound to be impacted quite badly, so he is not in a good place right now.
There is something in this week's Gazette about this.
There is a counter article this week from Teignbridge District Council justifying their position in the Dawlish Gazette
Interesting letter in this week's Gazette from DARE about this matter amongst other things pointing out that various groups in the town benefit from the farmer/landowner offering this particular piece of land to the air show, carnival, and firework display for free and asking that all groups in the town that benefit from this (including the tourism industry and the shops in the town centre) appeal to TDC to think again.
Have a read of the letter yourself. It's on page 9.
Three more letters in the Dawlish Gazette regarding Coastal Park SANGS! Worth a look.
letter in today's Gazette:
immoral’ tactics should be stopped immediately
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
Alison Foden, of Dawlish, has sent us a copy of her letter to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles, MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
Request for urgent action against Teignbridge District Council’s plans to force a farmer off his land
With reference to my letter to you dated October 23, 2014, I ask if you can give urgent attention to the land-grab plans of Teignbridge District Council, which will force a local farmer out of business, a third-generation farm.
Teignbridge DC intends to issue a compulsory purchase order to push a farmer off his land in Dawlish, so that they can use the land for a country park for SANGS (sustainable alternative natural green-space). The farm land has been farmed by the same family for over 60 years, and is a mixture of arable, sheep and cows.
The council maintain that they are required to offset the loss of land a couple of miles away, and that they need to provide alternative green space. However, putting a park on this farmer’s land would require car parks to be built, possibly another road, and people using it would need to drive there.
The farm has been farmed with countryside preservation to the fore for the last decade, and it is a habitat and feeding ground of the endangered cirl bunting. Warren Farm is adjacent to South West Water’s sewage works, and I understand that Natural England advises that ‘Sangs’ should not be in close proximity.
My questions are:
How can it be morally right that a council can force a farmer off his land and out of business in order to provide land for green space in order that developers can build houses on other green space? The land is being usefully used for agriculture, and is not an eyesore, and there are public footpaths across and around some of the fields.
It is both morally and ethically wrong to prevent a farmer from growing food on a well-managed farm in this world of food shortages.
There is land for sale in Cockwood, less than two miles away which would be an ideal location, why can the council not buy that land which is actually for sale? And there is ‘green space’ in the town of Dawlish – the Lawn – which the council wants to build on.
And in Dawlish Warren, if the aim is to protect the Dawlish Warren nature reserve, then why did Teignbridge DC allow houses to be built in the last couple of years adjacent to it?
If this compulsory purchase order of quality working farm land is allowed to go ahead, what is there to prevent Teignbridge District Council issuing further compulsory purchase orders in the future?
The way that the Warren Farm is managed benefits the local environment and wildlife through countryside stewardship, and should be promoted and recognised. There is a public footpath, and the farmer regularly allows local community events to use a field.
I request that you urgently look into the immoral land-grabbing tactics of Teignbridge District Council, and to prevent this from happening.
BBC Spotlight South West also covering this in their local news today.
There was an interview with Richard last night on the News. I do find what is happening bizarre. We don't need a country park, just stop building all over the beautiful woodlands we have already (walking through Elm Grove Woods breaks my heart at the moment. Do something with the top part of the playing fields - plant a few trees, put in a few benches, just don't force a farmer off his land.
Obviuosly someone in the council has got ££££££££££££££££££££'s as a 'Gift' to get the planning permission for homes.
I don't know farmer Richard Weekes let alone how to contact him. However, I am hoping that some who read this do.
Just a thought. And I have no idea whether or not it will help him in his fight to keep his land. But has anyone thought to suggest to him that he contacts the national press about this? Tabloid, Broadsheet, Left wing, Right wing. Don't care. Any and all of 'em. They might pick up the story. After all it has been running on the local tv news programmes today
I'd contact one or two of them myself but don't want to do so unless he is agreeable.
Can someone, somewhere, get this message to him please.
Go onto facebook either Warren Farm or Richard Weeks and you can sent a private message. Richard would like to talk to you as well. If you don't use facebook then it will be plan B, as I don't think you can send a private email through this site?
Webmaster - where has the messaging facility on this website gone? I'd like to contact Kaz via it but it seems this facility is no longer available.
Kaz - will try contacting RW direct. If a problem I will get back to you on here.
07749 623431 this is the number on his farm facebook page.
Have you noticed that the Dawlish Gazette is following the story, however I couldn't find anything last week in the so called Dawlish Post or did I miss it?
Kaz - have e-mailed RW direct using the e-mail address given on Warren Farm's website.
Kaz - what do you expect from the "Dawlish"/Newton Abbot Post ?
Lynne, the 'good fairy' worked her magic overnight. At 5.55am this morning on the Radio 4 Farming programme, there were interviews with Richard Weekes, Wife, Offspring and John Goode (Teignbridge Council).
In summary, to counterbalance the 1200 new homes in Dawlish there has to be a 'Green Buffer zone protected in perpetuity between Dawlish and the Warren'. Richard stated that he would lose one third of his farm to oblige the council by selling it to them. His two grievances were that the 'remaining two thirds of his farm would leave him with an unviable business' and that it wasn't fair that he is the one and only landowner being asked to part with land. Mr Goode replied that full market value would be offered (oh how generous of them given that someone must be 'making a killing' out of the 1200 new homes) and that 'compulsory purchase was furthest from his mind', but when pushed by further questioning did admit that doing so could 'not be ruled out'.
"to counterbalance the 1200 new homes in Dawlish there has to be a 'Green Buffer zone protected in perpetuity between Dawlish and the Warren'."
until that is planning regulations/policies change ( which inevitably they will do) and the 'perpetuity' could be undone in a blink of an eye.
"Mr Goode replied that full market value would be offered (oh how generous of them given that someone must be 'making a killing' out of the 1200 new homes)"
this, presumably, would be full market value of Grade 1 agricultural land rather than, as you imply, the market value of land that has been earmarked to have housing built on it.
Perhaps Mr Weekes should work out how much he will lose by not having a viable farm anymore and ask TDC to compensate him that way. Wonder if they would be so interested then?
and just when exactly in the process of formulating the Local Plan did TDC inform Mr Weekes of their plans for his land? I've heard it said that right back at the very beginning of the formulation of the future plans for Dawlish (2011?) this idea was put forward by TDC to the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan working group but that Mr Weekes was not informed beforehand about it.
Like I said, that's hearsay because I wasn't a member of the working group. But I would like to know if that is true or not. Would be interesting to hear the views of people who were on that working group with regard to the veracity of what I have heard re the lack of consultation with Mr Weekes when this idea was originally mooted.
this link will take you to the radio 4 programme to which Clive refers
the relevant bit starts 9.19 minutes into the programme and runs until 13.30 minutes
@Carer - Thanks - Yes it seems to have reappeared. When i needed to use it yesterday though I couldn't find it.
A little anecdote. But a true one. Brought up no doubt from the fathoms of my memory by this (as I write) bright sunny morning.
About 12/18months ago my partner and I took our dog for a walk at Dawlish Warren. Many others it seemed had decided to do the same. I vividly remember looking at my partner and saying "And I wonder how many people on a day like this would use the proposed coastal park at Warren Farm rather than come down here to the beach?".
on the other hand of course if dogs were to be banned from the Warren then............
(which then begs the question of how much of a negative impact this would have on Warren traders if all them dogs and their owners were directed away from the Warren shops and amusements).
So..........not just Mr Weeks who might be adversely affected then if this coastal park were to exist.
Found this the contents of which may be of interest to those following this matter
Note that on page 8 item 20 Map D it shows that the proposed coastal park would be made up of land presently comprising Warren Farm and land owned by other(s?) that are the fields where the Weds. open market is held during the summer and the field adjacent to it by the Langstone Cliffe Hotel driveway though I can't quite figure out what the field presently used for the Wednesday summer open market is scheduled to be used for.
Car parking spaces for up to 130 cars.
The sewage works, Leadstone camping, Leadstone bungalow and the houses twixt the open market field and the next field down towards the Warren appear not to be part of the proposed coastal park.
I heard the item on "Farming Today" and today had a look at "SANG"/Natural England. I didn't realise that the unelected Natural England had so much power and the provision of SANG requires such a lenghty protocol. Worse, a car park is needed, dog walkers encouraged , all this ruining a farmers living.
If I buy a house and want to walk a dog ,the Ordanance Survey map is more than adequate, most people have two legs, use them.
Also found this.
It is the result of the survey undertaken by TDC re the proposed Coastal Park.
No doubt this survey will be referred to by TDC in its pursuing of this park. Indeed I believe its existence has already been referenced by a Dawlish Teignbridge District councillor who used it as a defence for TDC's actions thus far. (ie the people of Dawlish were consulted about this proposal). Ha,******, ha.
Note the following:
1. I can only count some 83/84 responses on that survey (you have a count and see how many you get to - it will be around that number.)
2. Not all of the respondees are Dawlish residents. If you look on the survey responses it says whether it is an individual or an organisation that is responding hence you will find responses from the RSPB and and Shutterton Park Ltd amongst others. No problem with that, no problem with that at all, but that does mean that of the circa 83 responses even fewer were from Dawlish residents!
3. Dawlish has a population of circa 13,500. I know some of them will be children but even so ask yourselves how many Dawlish residents out of that number actually bothered to respond to this survey. Indeed how many of them actually knew about it and how many of them whether or not they responded were aware that one of the landowners had no wish to sell his land to TDC?
I'm the letter writer in the paper this week. I still haven't had a response o my letter to Rt Hon Eric Pickles or Rt Hon Liz Truss MP, so hope this means they're taking action against Teignbridge DC.
I'm planning to start an online petition on 38 Degrees website this weekend against the plans to force a farmer of land which is growing food.
Why should dog walkers and house builders get priority over land which ignores the fact that the land is already owned by someone, and who doesn't want to give up his land, property and livelihood?
All sounds very David and Ruth Archer and Justin Elliot's 'Route B'.
Fact can be stranger than fiction.
Listening to the interviews again, the Weekes sound like very decent people.
Goode just came across as a bully. If I am forced to aquire the land by compulsory purchase, then it is because you made me do it.
I have never seen this survey, were was it advertised, was it sent to every dawlish household. I think not typical dirty tricks by TDC
Should anyone wish to contact any of the Dawlish Teignbridge District Councillors about this issue but not know who to contact or how I thought this link might be of use.
It gives the names of all the Teignbridge councillors and if you click on their names you will find out how to contact them. Addresses, tel numbers, e-mail addresses.
These are the 5 Dawlish Teignbridge District councillors:
Humphrey Clemens (Conservative)
Ted Hockin (Conservative)
John Petherick (Independent)
Graham Price (Conservative)
Rosalind Prowse (Conservative)
Warren Farm is in the ward that Cllrs Hockin, Petherick and Price represent.
Cllrs Clemens and Price are TDC Planning Committee members. Cllr Clemens chairs this committee. Cllr Prowse is a substitute councillor for this committee.
(info from TDC website).
Hi all, I feel a plan of action is needed. If anyone wishes to support, let's meet up at The Strand Centre - the church on the strand at 12 today. They nice coffee there.
Ah! this message was tooo late for me!. And guess where I was until about 30 mins ago. Yep! You got it - in town.
I had a good meeting with Mr Weekes, and I've been speaking to people at the Manor House open day this afternoon. I feel that we have to do something soon, and to find out when Teignbridge DC are submitting their planning application - before they try to sneak it through.
Have you contacted any of our District councillors to see if they can find out?
@webmaster - messaging facility seems to have disappeared again.
Lynne. Do you use a smartphone to view this site. If so, there's something that intermittently causes the Messages and Profile link to be hidden. I guess it's something to do with the way the page resizes.
@Lynne, messaging is only available to people that have this option ticked in their settings. Could it be this?
@jc @webmaster -messaging option available at the bottom of each of your postings above but not under those of af who i would like to message.
Don't use smartphone - just old fashioned computer.
@AF - Teignbridge DC can send out to those who ask a list every week of planning applications submitted. Included in those who receive this notification, so I believe, is the MDA in Newton Abbot. (MDA= Mid Devon Advertiser for those who might not know. MDA produces, amongst other papers, the Dawlish Gazette).
Given the amount of publicity this issue has received so far, and which I anticipate it will continue to get, I can't imagine for one moment that the Dawlish Gazette will not let us all know when they receive notification of any planning application submitted to TDC (by TDC) with regard to the proposed coastal park and Warren Farm land.
Thank you Lynne, I plan to call into the Dawlish Gazette office on Monday morning.
I've just set up an online petition on the 38 Degrees website -see above. Please sign and forward onto other people too.
a more technical response from Mr Weeks himself concerning this coastal park proposal
Thank you Lynne.
Correction - in my post timed 16.11 on 14th November I should have written Leadstone Camping and Leadstone bungalow (I wrote Langstone on both occasions).
Thank you to the person who pointed that out to me.
Webmaster: Corrected now in that post.
“1.39: Aside from those proposals of potentially national significance, there has been additional
emphasis by the current Coalition Government on the return of decision making powers to
the local level, and empowerment of local communities to make decisions about the place
in which they live. The Coalition Government is also bringing forward a number of
changes that enable more developments to proceed without individual planning
permission, under permitted development rights, or through other new initiatives that are
intended to streamline the approval process.”
Found at top of page 20 in http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/env038a-footprintecologysedevoneuropeansitemitigationrepfinal2014.pdf
Thought for the day : Just how much decision making have the people of Dawlish had, and I mean really had, in the formation of the Local Plan? And note that last bit about some developments not having to go through the planning procedure!
And they talk about local empowerment.
(This document by the way is concerned with the impact of increased visitor numbers to , amongst other places, Dawlish Warren, due to the increase in population caused by all the new house building and how such possible increase in visitor numbers can be mitigated. In Dawlish Warren’s case this is by the proposed creation of a Coastal Park running alongside Warren Road/Mount Pleasant Road.)
This is a document to which I shall refer again. But in the meantime, and if you feel so inclined, do have a read of it yourself.
Well.............I did notice at the bottom of page 128/top page 129 that it says the following :
“ SANGS must be free from unpleasant visual, auditory or
olfactory intrusions (e.g. derelict buildings, intrusive adjoining
buildings, dumped materials, loud intermittent or continuous
noise from traffic, industry, sports grounds, sewage treatment
works, waste disposal facilities).”
And then for DA7 (that’s the proposed Coastal Park comprising Warren Farm plus land belonging to other(s)) I see that there is a tick in the box indicating that there is a 'current presence.'
So, 'they' acknowledge then do they that there is a sewage works in extreme close proximity to this proposed site
that there is a busy road, especially in summer, that links the Warren to Dawlish town and which road will run right along one side of the proposed coastal park.
What are 'they' going to do then? Get rid of the sewage works and the noisy busy road? Like wotsit they will.
Was that what you had in mind Kaz? Have I missed anything?
So not only will they be driving away potential trade, but they will be asking for the said traders to help them notify holiday makers about their byelaws! Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
Not much point in their selling barbeques then.
Why are TDC suggesting that what is presently a car park should be grassed over thus providing an additional space for dog walkers and picknickers when I thought the whole point of the Coastal Park was to draw people and their dogs away from the Warren?
because they are thick.
I'm sure I've probably just missed something on the links but how much will this all cost, including compulsory purchasing and what/whose budget is it coming from?
[Gets on well worn soap box] I'm sick to death of new 'projects' taking place with absolutely no thought to upkeep after it's completed. Let's face it the playing fields at the top only get mowed twice a year due to cost, Red Rock is struggling for funding, the old 'Tinkys' building is in danger of collapsing completely, Dawlish Leisure Centre should be known locally as "The Sieve" and we won't go there with the train station/wall.
There's plenty of walking available without going to Dawlish Warren there's absolutely no need to purchase this land and turn it into anything else. It's just another vanity project.
And someone ought to be shot over the car parking at Dawlish Warren - ever tried to park quickly (half an hour or an hour) to go about your business? No chance.
I'm starting to despair over the running of this county/country.
Where is the money coming from? Dunno, but suspect the landowners/developers of the land earmarked for all the housing development may have to hand monies over to TDC one way or the other. Wouldn't it make life a lot easier for all concerned though if instead of money to TDC the landowners/developers of the sites earmarked for housing development provided the land for a SANGS?
Kaz can you enlighten us any further?
I have posted this l link before but will do so again here.
Note there were 4 sites considered: 1.Langdon Farm; 2. Eastdon Wood; 3. Land near Dawlish Warren; 4.Land east of Teignmouth Road.
The land near Dawlish Warren site is TDC's preferred site.
Go to page 11 and then scroll down to see more about each site.
Note that at 8.1 on page 30 the document mentions Compulsory Purchase Orders.
Ah yes! TDC Executive Meetings. Here's some more info
From the minutes of TDC Executive meeting held 10th December 2013
see page 183 to middle page 185
Question 5 – Mr R Weeks
Has a copy of the TDC SANGS report of May 2013 been passed to the
Inspector, Mr Salter and to Natural England and if so has Mr Salter and
Natural England been asked to comment on the four proposed suggestions.
The site options appraisal report (May 2013) was submitted to the inspector
on 20 June 2013 (Core Document CDD78
document, along with the technical reports on habitats regulations and
Dawlish Warren impacts, were considered by the inspector during the local
plan hearings. The inspector also considered the 10 representations made on
the DA7 policy during the Local Plan publication stage consultation. We await
the inspector’s findings and report.
Prior to the planning application being made for Warren Farm will Dawlish
Town Council and the local people of Dawlish be informed of and given the
opportunity to be consulted on the four sites considered in the TDC SANGS
report of May 2013?
The site options appraisal report (May 2013) was a technical assessment of
alternative locations for a site which best met strategic requirements to
address the recreational impacts on the Warren. This report informed the
Habitats Regulations assessment of the Local Plan proposals and the Local
Plan policies as agreed by Teignbridge Council.
A planning application for the Coastal Park will be well advertised and
available for comment. The application will be determined by the planning
committee and interested parties will be given an opportunity to speak to the
committee. Only the proposed site of policy DA7 will be subject to any
application or consideration. One purpose of the Executive being asked to
review the draft report on the coastal park is to ensure the public is aware of
proposals prior to any application.
To include the successful appeal for Shutterton Lane for 350 houses and the
proposed and recently consented developments, the total number of new
houses just in Dawlish will be at least 1,888 which at 2.23 persons per house
will give an increase in population of 4,210. According to Natural England an
area of 8 hectares is required for every 1,000 new population. This would
equate to a minimum requirement of over 30 hectares. The land at Warren
Farm and Langstone Cliff Hotel field amounts to 21 hectares, a shortfall of
over 10 hectares. As the SANGS will have to be in two places in Dawlish why
can't 10 hectares be at one site and the other 20 hectares at one of the other
sites, where the land could be provided as part of proposed development on
land in the same ownership?
Delivery of SANGS in Dawlish must fulfil strategic objectives of addressing
impacts on the protected warren habitats as well as additional activity arising
from new development. The site options appraisal report (May 2013) is clear
the DA7 is the most effective location to meet the strategic provision to be
made. It is best capable of delivering an immediate coastal experience for
visitors, and for intercepting visitors travelling along Warren Road (the
principal approach route to Dawlish Warren).
Policy S17 makes clear there will also be provision of complementary SANGS
at Dawlish. The Council’s proposed Policy DA6 (incorporating submitted minor
changes) indicates this will require approximately 15 hectares of additional
strategic green infrastructure associated with new developments in the area.
Maximising SANGS which best supports the strategic objectives is the agreed
I feel it is morally wrong that I have to take the full burden of open green space
when other sites are available. The proposal will mean the loss of a third of
our family farm. Has the Council taken independent legal advice on the
validity of the CPO to purchase my farm when other sites are available?
Supplementary Answer - Deputy Chief Executive
The Council is awaiting the decision of the Planning Inspector. At this stage
we are talking to you about the potential for SANGs and looking at design and
access to the site. We would hope to achieve this through a negotiated
“Adjoining Timaru Sewage Treatment Works - potential risk of unpleasant
intrusion from smells”
this gem is to be found on page 22 of the TDC report dated May 2013 concerning the pros and cons of the four options for where the SANGS should be sited. It refers to the Warren Farm SANGS option.
My point being that the TDC officers who wrote this report and analysed the 4 sites have as good as admitted that the Warren Farm site breaches the Natural England protocol for where a SANGS should and should not be sited.
Click here for the whole document http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37826&p=0
Just been over to the Leisure Centre. Saw there were leaflets about Dawlish Warren National Nature Reserve. Thought I'd pick one up and 'ave a read given as how this areas existence is causing so much potential hassle for some.
Now.........the SANGS at Warren Farm is needed to reduce the number of visits to the Warren nature reserve right? So.......why is this leaflet advertising the Warren NNR? Why does it have a 'Welcome to Dawlish Warren National Nature Reserve' page which concludes with an "Enjoy Your Visit".
Question; Will this leaflet be withdrawn if the SANGS at Warren Farm goes ahead? Or will visitors still be encouraged to visit the Warren NNR?
Question: Will websites like this http://www.visitsouthdevon.co.uk/lots-to-do/dawlish-warren-national-nature-reserve-visitor-centre-p540583 be deleted? After all, why advertise the Warren NNR when the purpose of the SANGS is to stop people going to the Warren NNR?
Only 123 more signatures needed to reach the 2000, before the e-petition can be sent to the Government Departments. So it is the last push, if you haven't done it yet and are going to please do it now.
Thank you everyone, now only 69 signitures needed to reach target on 38degrees petition
3.1 Legal: It is a legal requirement that a local planning authority does not grant planning permission for any development that would negatively impact a European Site, unless full mitigation is secured. The Mitigation Strategy identifies the measures needed to mitigate recreational impacts from the construction and occupation of a specified number of new houses within the District. Accordingly the principle of securing monetary contributions through S106 agreements and/or CIL (on a per dwelling basis) to contribute towards achieving those mitigation measures is sound and ensures compliance with our legal duty under the Habitats Regulations.
However, it is important that the identified mitigation measures are properly implemented/delivered. Without appropriate mitigation mechanisms in place there is a real risk that development might occur that would result in adverse wildlife impacts.
Without securing mitigation measures planning permission must not be granted for development and if granted the Council could be liable to legal challenge.
@ time of typing this the e-petition has 2,028 signatories
Listen up everyone. Listen carefully. Can you hear it now? Listen hard. Because this is what I am hearing..........
A resounding silence on this issue from our Dawlish Teignbridge District councillors.
Ahem! I see that the new Exe Estuary Trail this side of the Exe Estuary is well on its way to being completed https://dawlish.com/thread/details/34129
This is what I have posted on that thread. I’ll repeat it on this one as it is very relevant.
"er..........all these extra people that this new trail will bring to the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren area.............
I thought the whole point of SANGS is to dissuade people from visiting both these places.
Go on someone - explain to me the logic of it all.
Lynne, I have heard that sound before.
I heard it in 2012 when, following the decision by Dawlish Councillors to switch the emerging Local Plan (eLP) housing allocation from Shutterton Park (where a planning application for 350 homes had just been refused) to Gatehouse Farm (DA2), I asked what would happen if the developer was to win approval on appeal? And would this relocation "result in the same number of houses for Dawlish" as suggested?
It was continued to be heard in 2013 when Councillors were asked (by one of the resident groups I belong to) for a response to a call for a reduction in the 12400 houses proposed in the eLP (the 2011 census data indicates a requirement of some 10000 homes). A similar silence followed the questions about whether the the large number of houses in the eLP was driven by perceived need - or by financial incentives gained from the New Homes Bonus?
The sound was still apparent at the eLP inspection last September. While the case for a better deal for Dawlish was being made by local resident groups, not a murmer came from its elected representatives - even as the notification about the successful Shutterton Park appeal was being circulated. When the bombshell finally dropped that Teignbridge wanted to keep these additional 350 homes (later swept under the carpet as 'windfall development') and 'grab' (as is their MO) an additional 8 hectares of land of NHS land at Langdon Hospital for 'mixed use', the only sound in the chamber were gasps of surprise and cries of 'shame' from the public gallery.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Richard Weeks and have supported his fight against injustice since it was first brought to the public's attention last year. I joined other local residents who had come to protest about this matter - and other "skewed decisions" taken by TDC during the eLP Inspection - in public debate at Dawlish Town Council last December. Later that month I spoke up as a member of the public against the Compulsory Purchase of Warren Farm at planning committee at Forde House, prior to the decision to approve the first planning application at DA2.
I am delighted that AF's petition has chimed with so many other people who do not want to see their local authority use their power (and our public funds) in such a high-handed manner. I am pleased to be joining Richard's 2076 (and counting) other supporters - let's all hope this silence will soon be broken...
Out of interest do any of our Town Councillors have a view? If I recall the numbers correctly the response to the petition has far exceeded the response to the Lawn proposals.
Apologies if this has already been covered but it seems to me that TDC need to demonstrate that they are complying with the National Planning Policy Framework in regard to this. Para 112 of the NPPF says, "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality."
As I understand it, the land TDC want to grab is wholly or mainly Grade 1. The definition of "best and most versatile agricultural land" in the NPPF is Land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.
I must give my thanks to Lynne for some of her links to TDC documents and reports. As a consultee to the Green Infrastructure Draft Strategy earlier this year I questioned the shortfall in SANGS that would be provided through a Coastal Park at Warren Farm, particularly as an additional 350 houses were to be built at Shutterton Park as 'windfall development' through permission granted at appeal in September 2013. Whether these houses were included in the Local Plan or not, they still would have needed a provision under SANGS (an additional 6.2 hectares) due to their proximity to Dawlish Warren and the Exe estuary.
The whole Dawlish SANGS Report from May 2013 can be read on Lynne's earlier link:
7.4: Option 3 Dawlish Warren – the site’s area is marginally less than the provision requirement of 27.4 hectares.
However, this is the statement I was given by Teignbridge in September 2014:
Policy DA6 of the Local Plan provides for approx. 15 hectares of strategic green infrastructure in the area to the south and west of Shutterton Lane and is additional to the coastal park. The coastal park provides sufficient SANGS for all the development and the development at Shutterton Lane includes contributions to the Exe estuary/SANGS and includes open space/green infrastructure within the scheme. There is not considered to be a shortfall in green space or SANGS within the plan or strategy.
So contrary to what TDC have stated in their GI Consultation response, there is a requirement for 33.6 hectares of SANGS in Dawlish with only some 22 hectares provided at Warren Farm. That's not a "marginal" shortfall, that's a massive 33% shortfall.
This evidence makes the point that not only is Richard Weeks being short-changed by Teignbridge, the people of Dawlish are also. Time to 'fess up TDC!
2185 signatures... and still counting.
Will this petition be acceptable to HM Government? Don't petitions need to contain the signatories postal address (not just their postcode)?
Nothing on the 38 degrees website to suggest otherwise, Judith. So all anyone should need to do to help Richard is to fill in the provided name, email and postcode fields, sign up - and pass the message on!
It doesn't matter that there's nothing on that particular website, if (IF) a full address is legally required in order for a petition presented to the government to be taken notice by them.
Extracts from the minutes of the DPNP meeting held 31.5.12 http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=34822&p=0
(SG = Steering Group; NP = Neighbourhood Plan; DPNP=Dawlish Parish Neighbourhood Plan; Core Strategy = Local Plan (which was subsequently adopted May 2014)
Coastal Park – this is a key ingredient of the NP to provide natural green space, and needs to be an early part of it. (page 5)
Cllr Clements commented that the SG has a chance to influence the Core Strategy and once the Core Strategy is adopted it cannot be changed. (page 6)
John Wilkinson . He felt that the country park is TDC’s vision and why is it different from SG’s vision. (page 7)
3.1 Dawlish Coastal Park
The Examiner’s Report highlighted the need for consistency of wording with the Core Strategy Preferred Options document to avoid confusion. The DPNP refers to a ‘Dawlish Coastal Park’ and the Core Strategy refers to ‘Dawlish Warren Coastal Park’. John Wilkinson noted that the development could be severely limited, the Report is questioning the word ‘Dawlish’ opposed to ‘Dawlish Warren’ and does not seem to think it is a different area, to which he disagrees.
Marie Stainwright confirmed that the community park is part of what would normally come through a green space provision, where as the coastal park is suitable alternative natural green space (SANGs). TP advised that to mitigate against impacts of increased visitor pressure on the Exe Estuary / Dawlish Warren protected sites it is not sufficient just to take a contribution of £350 per dwelling, there is a need to identify a piece of land to provide suitable alternative natural green space (SANGs). (pages 10&11)
Chris Swanwick enquired if the £350 charge will disappear into the CIL monies. TP advised this matter is currently being looked at by the LPA but there is the possibility that it could fall into the total CIL monies. Chris Swanwick then asked if there is going to be sufficient monies coming forward for a coastal park. TP confirmed that this was being looked at as part of the Core Strategy.
Cllr Clayson noted that the Examiner refers to availability of land in 5.16 of the Report. Chris Swanwick enquired if Dawlish should secure land into public ownership or ask TDC to buy it. TP said this is something the LPA is looking at and is working with land owners to bring forward a piece of land. (pages 10&11)
JC, if you have looked at the website you will have seen the success that 38 degrees has had with individual petitions to date. This one will be no different; it is the weight of public opinion behind the message that counts. Given that this fight to save Warren Farm is gaining around 1000 signatures a week it would be a particularly insensitive minister / councillor / local authority who would take no action.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
JC, I am of the view that the vast majority of those who have signed up to support Richard Weeks have done so in good faith. I am also certain that those who have positions of responsibility held on the basis of a mandate from the public will think likewise. I trust they will act accordingly.
BTW, is Judith Chalmers your real name?
JC all emails are registered and to get them you have to give personal details, which are on file, therefore could be checked. This means it is more valid than a person signing a paper petition that could actually put down a fake name and address.
The fact that 38degrees.org.uk have won cases means in law the system that they use is regarded as legal.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
JC, SoulofDawlish (not my real name of course) is my Dawlish.com nom de plume and the name of a rather passionate bunch of local people who are concerned about over-development in Dawlish. SoD can also be found on the Twitter tag @SoulofDawlish - thank you for asking.
As for adding your name twice to a petition, that is not something I would recommend even if you were particularly passionate about a cause. As you quite rightly point out, 38 degrees have been very effective in helping bring about change. I am confident they will continue to do so even if an odd signatory does not always play by the rules.
I bet this "passionate bunch" all live in houses that were recently fields. As for my comment re 38degrees, I politely suggest that you SoD read that comment again...
The point you're missing re. petitions that have no addresses of the signatories is that the Government will take no notice if there is no way of verifying the authenticity of the signatories. However if you'd have used the e-petition website to set this up...
Sometimes the word vexatious floats to the forefront of my mind.
JC, perhaps the 38 degree informative below is one reason the person who started this petition did not used the government's e-petition site? As for your comment about local people concerned about over-development, I take it you do not share their view?
Why not use the government's e-petitions site?
There are plenty of good reasons to start a petition on Campaigns by You rather than on e-petitions.
The most important one is that government e-petitions are easily ignored by MPs. MPs have a track record of refusing to debate petitions they don't like, so the petition ends up going nowhere.
For example, during the NHS campaign, 38 Degrees members decided to get an already existing NHS e-petition over 100,000 signatures to try to trigger a parliamentary debate. So that's exactly what we did, with the petition eventually passing 170,000 signatures and becoming the biggest petition on the site. However, despite this, MPs simply decided not to hold a debate, and all those signatures were ignored.
SoD, the 38degrees website is deluding itself and deluding people like you. There's been less than 70 petitions on their website. How many "members" does it have - it suggests tens of thousands but obviously that's utter BS. Why aren't you as cynical about the intentions of the people behind 38degrees as you are about the intentions of TDC?
SoD, I don't live in a house that was recently a field. Therefore I don't share their hypocrisy.
Lynne, you say "vexatious", I say "two sides to every story".
38 degrees provides an independent platform for people to air their concerns - and to encourage support from others. To have provided the medium for almost 70 petitions would seem reason enough for many to trust its efficacy. The people 'behind' 38 degrees are the ordinary man and woman in the street. Insult 38 degrees and you insult them. From what you have written here (and in other discussions) this is not something that would appear to concern you.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
2,250 have now signed the e-petition and the word is continuing to spread, like the butterfly effect. The fact that more and more are signing means that people actually care and want to make a difference by taking the time to register on the e-petition. JC I feel that whilst so many are positive it only takes one negative comment to have an impact on how people see this cause. You are trying to do a good job for the Council, but I fear that the people will still see Mr Weeks situation as a disgraceful act by TDC and this will motivate them to be even more proactive in passing on the word. Thank goodness for those that care about others and are willing to make a stand.
Absolutely agree Kaz. I signed the petition within 24 hours as there for the grace of God go any of us. We all need to put ourselves in Mr Week's position and ask would we like this to be done to us? For the vast majority the answer would be a resounding NO! There are other sites, far more suitable as has been pointed out, that could be used without taking away a significant proportion of someone's livelihood. I am also, proudly, a member of 38 degrees and know that they have made a significant difference on a variety of BIG issues as well as small issues in localities. I now await the wrath of Mrs C to descend on me.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
Just as I predicted! And what a couple of truly dreadful posts. Whoever had posted, I would have made the response but, let's be honest, Mrs C is one on her own.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
I am not convinced that many who have rushed to sign the petition have read the approved Plan Teignbridge and so:
Adopted Teignbridge Local Plan (6th May 2014)
DA7 Dawlish Warren Coastal Park
An area approximately 22 hectares is identified at Dawlish Warren to create a
Coastal Park which shall:
include suitable alternative natural green space and recreation
include buildings of an appropriate scale for associated leisure, recreation
and maintenance use; and
contain suitably located ancillary car parking provision.
Any proposals for development shall be accompanied by:
wildlife assessments on the impact of new structures; and
assessment of the impact of any proposed lighting and potential
A Coastal Park is proposed between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren. The main
purpose of the Coastal Park will be to attract visitor pressure away from the
European Sites at Dawlish Warren (SAC) and the Exe Estuary (SPA and RAMSAR),
and as such it will be a piece of strategic infrastructure providing suitable alternative
natural green space (SANGS) over and above open space normally required to
serve new development. ( my underline and emphasis)
The Coastal Park will include multi use tracks and trails and open space for informal
recreation providing an alternative destination for walkers and dog walking, with
connection to the route of the South West Coastal Path and National Cycle Network
Route 2. It will also serve as a locally important visitor attraction and support tourism
through the inclusion of recreation facilities, potentially a children’s adventure/
sheltered play area, outdoor amphitheatre, and visitor centre.
So, is there another site which achieves the objective of diverting visitors from use of the Warren, and how is it to be achieved ?
Firstly the Coastal Park goes against many things that Natural England say shouldn't be.
1. Not next to a Sewage Treatment works - smells (that's a must)
2. Not next to a busy road - traffic noise (that's a must)
3 Concern that it doesn't link back to the Nature Reserve - It is served by the South West Coastal Path and that links back. Provide free parking and increase the charges at Dawlish Warren Carparks then all that happens is people will park at the top in the free carpark and walk down the South West Coastal Park to the Warren/Nature Reserve. It doesn't take someone smart to work that one out!
However, if we had a Country Park at the back of Gatehouse, then all the new dwellings could access it, as well as those dwellings located in Dawlish Central and North East wards. The new proposed link road from the Sainsbury's Roundabout to Elm Grove Road would pass near and allow for people using the bus to access it also with relative ease.
People I have talked to say they would prefer the Country Park for these reasons:
1. They would have hedges to shelter behind in the winter when walking, unlike the bleak Coastal Park where the bitter winds would cut across making it quite unpleasant, or the smell of sewage in the warmer months.
2. The Coastal Park has sea views, but what else? The Country Park would have views to Exmouth, Haldon etc. and the fields/trees are constantly changing colour throughout the year!
Maybe this is what Teignbridge should ask the residents what they actually want out of a park and not just assume that we have no minds of our own and no vision for Dawlish!
How arrogant of Robert Vickery to assume that many of us have not read the plan. I have read the plan but even if I hadn't I would have signed the petition for the reasons I stated above. I find it interesting that he has only decided to post after I have posted, total silence up until that point
Why not put the SANGS in the already designated Undeveloped Coastal Zone (EN2 - I believe!).
That would kill 2 birds with one stone as that land can't be developed anyway.
To take land from a working farmer is abhorrent!
So........when the TDC planning application to turn Warren Farm into a Coastal Park finds its way to our town council's planning committee so as they can make their recommendation(s) I wonder what it is they will recommend?
For info here are the Dawlish councillors who sit on the town council's planning committee (from DTC website)
Cllr. R. Vickery – Chairman
To be fair, most people have only signed the petition because of the impact of the proposal on Farmer Weeks' estate. The rest of the mumbo-jumbo that you're all blathering on about, they couldn't give a stuff.
So......let's divide this up shall we into two aspects.
1. The impact on Richard Weeks' livelihood, the for need local food production, compulsory order etc - moral issue - lots of people will identify with that.
2. Whether or not what is being proposed complies with the SANGS requirements. That is a planning issue.
When push comes to shove it is planning transgressions that will hold the greatest sway legally but enough people being het up about (1) and the politicians will either sit up and take notice or risk feeling the wrath of the people come the elections in May 2015.
Both cards need playing.
This thread has become too long it takes ages to scroll down, and if I was honest most of it goes over my head anyway
Yes I agree it is a very long thread. Perhaps someone would like to start another one? (If I do that I can imagine the reaction from certain quarters..........).
The issue (s)going over people's heads? - Yes I strongly suspect that they do and I alluded to that on another thread.
Trouble is that when issues go over people's heads, in this case planning legislation, other people can run rings around them as I fear has happened with Richard Weeks.
Mrs C, how can you possibly know that without actually speaking to the 2000+ people who have signed the petition. You sound as arrogant as Robert Vickery. The vast majority of people do know what they are doing and why they are doing it and Lynne, Kaz and many others on this thread have provided clear evidence and cogent arguments for not putting the coastal park where TDC have proposed.
This thread has been up for a year and has been active for two months yet there hasn't been a peep from the usually mouthy Margaret Swift. Now she realises that it's safe to nail her colours to Mr Week's mast AND can perpetuate her bitchfest with JC, she finally swoops in with her puffed up ego in full feather trying to position herself as champion of the cause and do down a fellow Councillor into the bargain. Shamelessly transparent!
Webmaster - are you able to reverse threads so recent posts are at the top, am getting RSI scrolling down them.
Thank you Mrs S for calling me arrogant twice in the space of ten hours. Roberta is quite right. This thread is too long and not reaching a positive conclusion, even after Lynne has posted 49 times to no evident effect.
There is no point in trying to get changes through the Town Council. It is the District Councillors that objectors need to reach and , as far as I can see, none of them are reading you. Lynne posted their names somewhere up above, but they are also identified on the back page of the Town Crier.
Don't our town councillors talk to our district ones then?
Corrrrrr.............don't know what I ever did to upset Dorian but it must have been pretty bad!
I think the evident effect of Lynne's postings and those of others is the 2000+ signatures.
Stick with us, Roberta - the thread is this long only because it is such a concerning issue.
Have you tried using the 'End' button on your keyboard? It should get you there straight away.
I only have a brick for a phone so I do not know if there's an app for that... anyone else?
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
No you can't, choose your own words!
@Mrs C 24 November 20.34. You are so out of touch!
They keep talking about "members". You don't have to be a member to sign their petitions. If they feel that their petition "forced" Osborne to make his decision, then they're entitled to think that. As deluded (arrogant) as it might be.
JC you are definitely a cup half empty person, aren't we. Those who post information that others might find of interest are just enabling them to have the information to make an informed judgement, this about issues that will impact on all residents of Dawlish now and for generations to come. It will also have a financial impact on Dawlish with not just the purchasing of the land, but the ongoing monitoring of wildlife along with major infrastructure costs in relation to new visitor centre and carparks etc. Therefore, it is more than buying the land, because at some point the developer's contributions will run out and then the council will be adding a charge to your council tax bills to fund this! It might be in 10 or 15 years, but it will come like the garden waste tax, but this will not be optional!
Of the threads posted to on here in the last week, where there has only been one post on the thread, they were viewed between 10 times and 54 times. Suggesting that circa 50 people read our ramblings on the forum. To say that posts on here have had the effect of making 2000+ people sign a petition is nonsense. I maintain my humble opinion about sympathy signatures.
My glass is definitely half full Kaz, just not as full as some posters' on here at certain times of night...
I think Mrs C's glass is never full for very long judging by her posts!
That's right. I'm a raging Alky me. You'll find me on the "piazza" most days...
Thanks for link Lynne. The article (on-line version at least) only mentions the plight of Farmer Weeks. Maybe someone should write a letter to the Gazette to inform them that they have forgotten the importance of Article 3.4.2, Subsection 23/14/2 on page 87. The devil's in the detail!
Article 3.4.2, Subsection 23/14/2 on page 87.
Would help if you gave us the title of the document or whatever it is where we can find this particular page 87
You must missed that memo Lynne! :-)
Thank you for posting on this thread so much JC as everytime you do that and in doing so provoke a response or two this thread just keeps finding its way to the top of the pile.
I'm sure Farmer Weeks is very grateful for your help in keeping his plight to the forefront of our minds.
I'd hope that Farmer Weeks is grateful, as we all signed that petition in order to protect his estate for himself and his family! Long may this thread continue! Not sure why you'd think that I'd hope otherwise.
Absolutely right, Lynne. While it is utterly disingenuous to boast proudly of supporting a cause without assisting others in its common purpose, these self-serving tactics do have a positive benefit in helping keep the issue of Warren Farm in the spotlight.
Just a handful of on-line petition signatures needed to bring up the 2500 milestone! Has everyone in your household who supports Richard Weeks' Warren Farm signed yet?
Richard Weeks along with some of his sheep will be at the Dawlish Christmas market today. You'll find him (and them) outside the URC on the Strand.
If you haven't signed the petition yet this will be an ideal time to do so.
2500 signatures now on the petition in support of Richard Weeks in his battle with Teignbridge...
I've just come back from the Christmas market helping Richard and family with their petition.
People were queuing up to sign and at one point someone had to nip off somewhere fast to get some more petition forms printed off such was the number signing.
I and my family have all signed the epetition and it makes me feel proud to be a resident of Dawlish. I have told friends and they have passed the messege on to their friends like a ripple effect. My daughter is going to a christmas party with over 70 attendees and the organiser said she could bring the petition and get as many people as possible to sign. Everyone counts in the fight against TDC and I will keep a copy with me for friends I know haven't signed yet! I would have loved to see Richard and the sheep today, but yesterday I was struck down by a sickness bug and though a little better today, I am still feeling a bit weak. So hearing the good news has cheered me up no end.
Good to have met up again with Richard and his family (and his sheep!) at today's Christmas market. Literally hundreds of people adding their names to the petition in support throughout the day.
Lovely also to have met up with Alison Foden, the lady who single-handedly kicked off the 38 degree petition. Thank you Alison for your stand which - as we now know - represents the concerns of a large cross-section of Dawlish residents.
So the sun shone, the stallholders did well, the town was in festive cheer - and for good measure, local politicians' feet were held to the fire. There should be more days like this in Dawlish!
I stopped at the stall today and want to double check something. Is it right that the owners of the land earmarked for the housing development also own Options 1 and 2 earmarked for SANGS, which happen to be adjacent to the proposed housing, as opposed to Option 3 (Weekes Farm) some distance away? Is it also true that the landowner prefers to hold on to Options 1&2 for further housing development than give it over for SANGS?
The name Jeffreys was mentioned. Any connection to the Jeffery family Lynne previously mentioned as owning Lady's Mile and Cofton holiday parks and who are in dispute?
I will try, but I don't know everything so have had to look it up on the planning portal and ask around.
Option 1 land at Langdon Farm is owned by the owner of Gatehouse Farm (George Jeffery, Cofton Holiday Park) who is one of the major landowners in Da2 here is the plan lodged at TDC in relation to barn conversions in 1989.
Option 2 is a little trickier as it is in multiple ownerships. What I understand is the Eastdon Wood is George Jeffery's, then Airways Farms (Richard Cotton) who have just sold a large parcel of land at Cofford Farm have another large parcel of it, with a few smaller owners including Mr Weeks.
This being the case and if a developer was to provide the SANGS then Langdon Farm land would be the obvious choice, as it is under one ownership, and also adjacent to the Da2 development. It is available, because has been offered before in connection with the first phase development of 75 at Gatehouse. Option 2 would meet the guidance of interception better and is a larger allocation to meet the short fall and as pointed out people are using the wood for dog walking, though unofficially. However, if the SANGS are for the DA2 development then they should be linked to it and maybe further land behind Option 1 could be used to make up the shortfall.
I hope this clarifies a few things
Link to the Design and Access Statement for Gatehouse Farm, Dawlish - 12/03797/MAJ - below:
Note that although this application is in relation to the first 75 homes on this site (DA2), reference is made to the ridge top 'country park' (and its roots in the DPNP) on pages 3, 6, 8, 18 & 19.
er........so why hasn't TDC gone for Option 1 then?
Indeed, this is a bigger story than one man resisting a CPO of his farm, it needs to get to the bottom of why TDC is ignoring the two most obvious and adjacent sites. The owners of those sites will be quids in if they can sidestep an agricultural price for SANGS in favour of a more lucrative housing development price. Why is TDC supporting them? Do these landowners (who clearly have other significant commercial interests in the area) have more influence with TDC than we know about?
And the penny starts to drop.
We'll be handing in the petitions with all signatures to date this Friday to Parliament.
2566 online and 1177 on paper.
There's still time to sign online, or one of the paper copies around the town.
I've just been looking on the Dawlish Airshow website and saw this: Dawlish Air Show has event parking for 1500 vehicles. I tried e-mailing them via their 'contact us' form but it wouldn't work so perhaps someone could forward this question onto them or even answer it themselves on here.
My question is: I believe Dawlish Air Show uses Warren Farm for parking. So, have you (Dawlish Air Show) any idea where parking could take place in the event that Warren Farm becomes a coastal park?
have you tried asking their facebook page @Lynne?
I don't have an fb account.
Lynne this is all I can find on facebook
email Gareth Stringer, our Press Officer
or failing that email@example.com
The committee consists of five unpaid volunteers (from left to right – Emma Nankervis, Jenny Connor, Matt Simmons, Ali Aitchison and Kevin Wills) who all work tirelessly all year round to put on the great spectacle that is Dawlish Air Show. We are supported by a larger working group, who between them bring various skills vital to the safe running and management of such a large event.
Dawlish Airshow Ltd. is a company registered in England with company no. 07210463
Registered address: 17 Stockton Hill, Dawlish, Devon EX7 9LP
Thanks for the info Kaz. I've now sent an e-mail.
@Mcjrpc - I suspect (and in the absence of proof, suspicion is all it can be) that the reason TDC wish to not have a SANGS up in option 1 (ie Langdon Farm area) or even option 2 is that should more house building be needed then that land would be available (although of course if there is even more house building then surely more SANGS will be needed? so.......other landowners in the area beware!).
This would be a win win situation for TDC (available land) and the landowners (land scheduled for housing more valuable than agricultual land).
also! more houses = more new homes bonus (if it still exists then) for TDC plus more CIL money for TDC. And don't forget that Dawlish will get 15% of the CIL levy from the building of these new homes and this can be increased by another 10% when it has formulated a new Neighbourhood Plan. Then on top of all that I guess all the new residents will be paying community tax to TDC. So, quids in for everyone then?
(except of course for the sacrificial lambs at Warren Farm..................)
The grapevine has it that ITV will be at Warren Farm today to cover the story so far. Richard Weeks and Martin Wrigley (Cockwood Residents Association chairman) will be there - not sure whether John Goodey or anyone else from TDC will show. Might be worth tuning in to the lunchtime/evening news.
BTW, I keep a pretty close eye on planning and development matters in our green and pleasant land, but forgive me if I have missed something... does anyone know why a dozen or more holiday chalets have recently appeared on the skyline at Lady's Mile, just across the road from Warren Farm? I though this upper field was for touring caravans and tents, between May and September only. Just asking.
SoD, they're the old ones that have been moved from Oakcliffe to make way for their new Exe View lodge development. These mobile homes have been moved to the old Seaways site temporarily and won't be occupied. Happy to help.
I'm mighty relieved to learn that - but should not permission be sought first? The planning condition attached to this approved planning permission (08/02952/MAJ) reads thus:
SoD, these aren't touring caravans or tents. And what visual amenity are they interrupting??
It would seem beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
A politicians non-answer! What visual amenity is being impaired by these mobile homes being parked up there?
Even to someone who appears blind to other people's viewpoints, this should be perfectly clear.
It is an Area of Great Landscape Value. THE CLUE IS IN THE TITLE
...but only for a few months a year it would seem.
SoD, you can only see those mobile homes if you're standing outside the sewage works and peering trough the hedge. Why you'd do that is anyone's guess. Have you dredged up any files that relate to mobile homes - because the one you pasted about the tourers and tents appears to be irrelevant.
So.........to get back to the plight of Warren Farm.
To add to my posting of earlier today @08.53.
That Dawlish could benefit quite substantially by having lots of new houses built here (the livelihood of a local farmer being sacrificed in the process) might, might, explain the resounding silence from our local councillors (Margaret S. being the exception).
To have money for Dawlish or help save a working farm and a family's livelihood? Is that the question?
You seem to be making a case for the (alleged) transgressor here, rather than for the people you purport to represent. If you look more closely at the planning files you will see exact;ly why these conditions have been put in place.
The very serious point of the matter is this: if Teignbridge's own planning rules can be bent with impunity in this fashion, how can there be any public trust that the purchase of Warren Farm (compulsory or otherwise) by Teignbridge will not result in the creeping commercialisation of the last vestiges of our undeveloped coast?
SoD, I purport to represent nobody but myself!
I believe that your issue is not with the land that these are temporarily sited on, but with the surname of the landowners. You still haven't pointed out where it states anything about mobile homes - if you do then I'll support you (for what it's worth) in your campaign to have them removed - I assume that there'll be a "signme" petition?
Well SoD, I've had a look at the application that you're being so vociferous about, and sadly for you it's got nothing to do with the location where the mobile homes have been temporarily placed. You are on about the mobile homes on the old Seaways site aren't you? Attention to detail, and all that.
If so, have another look at the site map in relation to the actual location before you apologise to the landowner and TDC. Thanks.
I know little about the land owners other than what is already public knowledge. On this matter also, you would seem to have me at an advantage.
The granting of conditional planning permission for the planning application 08/02952/MAJ is quite clear in what is not permitted - and what is. I have read it carefully - I suggest you (and anyone else with concerns on this matter) do likewise.
As it happens, I do have another petition in mind, but it is not related to a single planning matter. There will be plenty of opportunity to add your valued support, but - in deference to those looking to this thread for news about Warren Farm - it will be the subject of a separate discussion.
SoD. Have another look at the clearly defined geographical area of the planning application you refer to. That area, and ergo the conditions of what is and what is not included, doesn't include the location of these temporarily placed mobile homes which are on the Seaways field nearest to Warren Road. Try again.
The land I believe you are refering to is that covered by PP 10/02648/MAJ which, you will note, is similarly conditioned.
SoulofDawlish - by bringing up the subject of these mobile homes on Lady's Mile and clearly having dug deep into their planning applications, I'm wondering if you have a larger axe to grind than the subject of Mr Week's farm? If so it makes me uncomfortable as I have supported his plight in good faith.
Apology accepted SoD.
I'm currently stood at the gates to Warren Farm. And I can't see any livestock. In fact all I can see is arable (non food producing) green fields. And a horse. There must be some mistake. Maybe I signed a petition to save a working farm somewhere else?
I can’t speak for other local councillors but I certainly have been concerned about this issue, and am listening to what people in the town are saying.
Some agencies seem to be interested in having the park as close to the Warren as possible so that holidaymakers and locals alike will spend time there rather than on the Warren itself. The reconfiguration of the sea defences on the Warren itself will result eventually in a reduction of the accessible beach, reducing the amenity value.
My own view is that given the choice people will generally go for a walk on the beach rather than a walk across fields/grass, and a reduction in beach space will result in a reduction in visitors.
All things being equal, if all landowners agree, then I think with the inevitable beach reduction, and provided some thought is given to the amenities available in the Country Park (Neighbourhood plan is important here) the proposed site is the best option.
However – it is clear that all things are not equal so a rethink is required.
The ‘country park’ would end up providing the Sangs requirements and would/could be sited nearer to the new housing developments. It would be unlikely to attract the visitor element, and certainly not day trippers arriving by bus and train.
The holiday industry at the Warren could take a big hit in the long term unless better attractions and more amenities are provided.
There is also the issue that any amenities on the coastal park will need to be maintained, which can be expensive.
Here's a thought... what about if some money could be granted to Mr Weekes to help him turn the farm itself into a visitor attraction whilst keeping it as a working farm - thus keeping everybody happy? There's the Forest Funghi operation right next door which would also benefit.
There would still need to be some open space elsewhere to satisfy the Sangs requirement, but a working farm open to visitors could also count towards that provision, and would keep the Warren as a very attractive holiday destination.
Strolling further down Warren Road, I've found a field backing onto the hotel that's got a couple or three dozen sheep in it!! And another with a couple of horses...
JC - I'm not sure that proves anything. When I walk by Seven Sisters sometimes there are cows and/or sheep in the field and sometimes there aren't. I'm no farmer but I used to live opposite a farm and the cattle were never in the same place all the time.
Mcjrpc. I'm not saying that it proves anything. However if these empty fields form one third of Farmer Weeks' estate, what's happening on the other two thirds?
SoD. I've now had a look at the second set of plans that you've found. There's still no reference to mobile homes (even unoccupied ones!) - only tourers and tents. There's also this gem in the decision notice: "Whilst the site displays some characteristics of the Area of Great Landscape Value, it has been influenced by nearby holiday development which has weakened its rural character and quality. Notwithstanding the Coastal Preservation Area designation, the site is not generally visible from cliff top, beach, sea or estuary and the development would not detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the undeveloped coast."
Thanks for your comments.
There are many factors that have led to the decision by Teignbridge to plump for Warren Farm for a 'coastal park' and for SANGS provision. I will not list them all here as most have been covered adequately (or through the various links) however one of the most important elements, delivery - and the social cost of the displacement of Richard Weeks and his family - appears to have been down-played. There are many good sites elsewhere (with the Lady's Mile fields, on the prominent Dawlish Warren headland, seemingly well positioned to provide a supporting role for SANGS) why cannot these be selected instead?
Most of the people I have listened to speak about their sense of injustice; that they had assumed (as did I) that a deal had already been done and that was simply the end of it. Richard (realising his predicament perhaps somewhat belatedly) has now made it abundantly clear: Warren Farm is not for sale. He therefore has my fullest and continuing support - and I hope yours also.
Ive read that Langstone Cliff will lose some of their land as well along with Mr Weekes
@roberta - you could well be right. certainly there is land in other ownership (for example the land where the open market gets held during the summer) that has also been eyeballed by TDC for this coastal park.
I don't see why Teignbridge don't use land they already own for the SANG-S. As I understand it they own most of the land between Breakneck and Strawberry Lane/Oak Hill Cross Road. That would provide superb views and protect that land from being built on.
I suppose they don't want to do that that as development land is much more valuable!
The second lot of horses that I thought I saw in the distance are actually donkeys! Is that what they mean by biodiversity?
SoD, did you manage to dig up anything related to mobile homes not being allowed to be stored on the old Seaways?
As a matter of fact, yes. Unless my compass has let me down (that's my actual compass, not the moral variety which appears to have gone astray at Teignbridge HQ), it would appear both sites have mobile homes on them.
BTW, you should stick to travel documentaries, Judith. Someone who does not know their ass from their equine cousins should not be preaching on countryside matters.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
This post has been removed due to too many reports.
Sorry I'm new here. I pressed the wrong button. I went to undo but I could'nt. Sorry.
Thanks for holding your hand up. Not many people press the Agree button on my posts, so it's ironic that when someone tries to they press the button next to Agree lol.
Congratulations on your first post being post #200 on this thread.
SoD - Mr Weeks had my support even before its recent surge of momentum but beware of mission creep. If you start making mischief over Lady's Mile and getting at JC because she doesn't see it the same way you could end up looking vindictive. That's when support could start falling away. Keep focussed on the orginal goal.
I find it intriguing that a little bit of research on Google finds that Farmer Weekes has stated that he's been in favour of building housing on a greenfield site in Cockwood. On whose land is anyone's guess...
The issue on this thread concerns the saving of Warren Farm, not any other farm or land (unless the losing of Warren Farm then means the loss of other land owned by Mr Weeks). I don't know if the greenfield site in Cockwood to which JC refers is in Richard's ownership or not but even if it were to be perhaps it is the case that Richard could lose that land to housing and it would not have a negative impact on his livelihood. The point about Warren Farm is, as I understand it, that it is needed for farming and other activities that between them and his farming on his other land provide Richard and his family with a means of making a living. If Warren Farm goes, so does the Weeks' livelihood. What bit of that is it that some people seem to think is okay?
Who has said that is okay?
Those who support TDC's proposal.
Richard Weeks (and Martin Wrigley, Cockwood Residents Association chairman) did a piece for ITV yesterday at Warren Farm. TDC were unable to attend, however it is understood they may be interviewed on camera today. Most likely TV appearance is following the late evening news but it may be worth keeping an eye on earlier local news slots also.
As there were postings on this thread yesterday concerning farming activities or, more to the point, the apparent lack of them at Warren Farm I took the liberty of asking Richard Weeks what type of farming activity takes place there. This is what he told me.
"There are cattle there at the moment all steers and some Aberdeen Angus. The sheep in the field are with young lambs. We have around 20 acres of spring barley growing in the spring so that can't be seen at the moment. Hay and silage are produced at the farm from the grass that grows there but we wont be hay making at this time of the year. Straw and hay are stored in the barn..The main sheep flock(along with the suckler beef heard) is is at Eastdon and will be lambing shortly. I need them near the farm house to keep an eye-on them."
Lynne thank you for putting this information in the public domain, as non-farmers wouldn't realised half of what goes on. The fact is that lambing can be difficult and as such you need to be living on site, as it is a 24 hour activity. Lambs don't just get born in daylight hours! This being the case you need somewhere to rest/sleep and get hot food an drinks on rota. The agricultural barn at Warren Farm is not suitable for humans or sheep in these cold, wet days and therefore Richard has no choice by to move all livestock back to Eastdon!
For the benefit of those 1000-plus people who have signed the paper petition and who have been following events on this discussion thread, this email was received yesterday by 38 degrees signatories:
Thank you for signing the petition 'Immoral tactics of Teignbridge District Council'. We will be handing this petition in to the the offices of the Department of Local Government & Communities, and to the offices of DEFRA (department of the Environment and Rural Affairs) in Westminster this Friday 12th December.
We will continue to collect signatures to grow our campaign, so please can you continue to spread the word by forwarding the link below to your friends?
Thank you very much for your support.
PS TDC did not send anyone to meet the ITV Westcountry team - and instead issued a statement, which did not make the airwaves. Meanwhile in the corridors of power at TDC HQ, the fight against this injustice also intensifies...
ITV could still air what they filmed and then read the TDC statement. Nothing stopping them from doing that.
Thanks Lynne for taking the time to ask Farmer Weekes about his empty fields. Us townies clearly don't understand the ways of the country.
Quite. So perfectly understandable then that farmers (and all other non planning people) won't necessarily understand the implications of their property being eyed up by planners whose aim could well be that the property in question should be used for something other than its present use.
In this particular instance for privately owned Warren Farm to become a publicly owned coastal park.
This idea I understand was first mooted publicly by TDC planners some three years or so ago. But who knows how long before that was it floating around in the minds of TDC planners eh? I mean, I should sincerely hope that professional planners would have known all about the SANGS requirement and the number of houses roughly needing to be built in Teignbridge and in particular near to the Warren NNR and the Exe estuary way before the Dawlish neighbourhood plan #1 Steering Group was convened some 3 years or so ago.
Well said Lynne. I find the silence from Dawlish Town Coucil quite disturbing given we have a retired architect/planning expert on the council who is in a good position to advise us.
Well now.........thinking about it.......when I said that Warren Farm could be turned into a publicly owned coastal park maybe that would not necessarily be the case.
Suppose that TDC were to get its way and Warren Farm land ends up in TDC's ownership. Suppose then that the monies coming in from the CIL were not so great as had been anticipated and/or that CIL money planned to be spent on Local and Neighbourhood plan projects had then to be diverted to other uses - in such a scenario (which with continued central government cutbacks on local government finances could well be the case) projects such as the coastal park at Dawlish could take a back seat/need an injection of cash from somewhere else.
Private sector commercialisation of said coastal park to the rescue perhaps?
Could it end up being a bit like what is to be found at Land's End in Cornwall? http://www.landsend-landmark.co.uk/