Teignbridge District Council want comments on their draft plan for the area on the other side of Secmaton Lane, now green farmland, from Gatehouse Farm to Langdon Hospital. It has already been agreed and passed that at least 860 homes will be built in this area (called DA2) in the 20 year TDC Plan. This consultation is on the details.
NOTE (examples of what they propose)
TDC will not confirm that 860 is the maximum number, it could be well over a 1,000 plus homes!
A link road is planned from Gatehouse Farm to the Exeter Road (A379) at Sainsbury roundabout, for these homes. HOWEVER they are not insisting that developers have to use the link road to bring in materials from the Exeter Road end. Elm Grove Road will be the main access. This presents unacceptable and unnecessary ongoing noise, dirt and RISK TO SCHOOL CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOLS!
They are proposing that part of the site for 35 homes could be accessed from Secmaton Lane itself. This is a single track country lane and pedestrian / cycling route to Sainsbury and across to the Warren. IT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO HAVE BUILDING MATERIAL LORRIES ACCESSING FROM THE LANE!
Original plans for this area included an additional facility for Health and Early Years facilities and support community facilities. This has been lost from the draft but suggesting funding given to existing Barton Surgery and suggested use of Red Rock building! However this is only one off funding!
You have the opportunity to question TDC planners on the 23rd September. Please use this opportunity, and submit your comments. Produced by worried residents – for more details ring ?
Developers will have to provide a green space (called SANGS) within the area. However this is suggested as temporary because of the proposed Dawlish Coastal Park area at Warren Farm on Warren Road. Many local people do not want that area lost to farming, and is too far from this major new area of homes. Shouldn't this be permanent instead of unwanted Dawlish Coastal Park?
Re the location of the SANGS. (my emphasis in bold) (Spa = Special Protection Area; Sac =
Special Area of Conservation). The Exe Estuary is a SPA, Dawlish Warren is a SAC.
6.12 Such alternative sites are as yet untested, but guidelines and recommendations for
site design are available (Liley, Mallord, & Lobley 2006; Liley et al. 2009). The issues
are however complex. With highly attractive sites like the Exe Estuary it is difficult to
imagine how green infrastructure may serve as a viable alternative for many
activities. The presence of green infrastructure to serve new development would
need to be carefully planned and located so that it did not have the effect of linking
into the SPA/SAC to create even more attractive and longer walking or dog walking
routes. Rather the alternative sites should be an attractive and viable alternative in
their own right, adequately ensuring no net increase in recreational pressure on the
6.13 In terms of visitors to the Exe, alternative sites and green infrastructure are not likely
to be effective alone. They may be effective if combined with on-site management
measures that may serve to deter visitors to the Exe (e.g. changes to parking or dog
control orders in certain areas). The following may have merit and perhaps warrant
further work to explore potential:
6.14 Provision of new dog walking areas. Dog walkers interviewed during the face to
face work were typically walking around 1.6km during their visit. The face to face
survey included a question about what factors would draw users to other sites.
Nearly one-third (30%) of dog walkers indicated that no change was possible (i.e. an
alternative site would be unlikely to work). Many (38% of all dog walkers) who did
identify features suggested making other sites more dog friendly. Comments
relating to ‘dog-friendliness’ help to define what aspects are important: comments
included more space, enclosed space (i.e. safe areas to let dogs off leads, with roads
etc. fenced), dog bins, presence of a dog warden, less wildlife, less mud, ability to let
dogs off leads, longer walks and no restrictions. In terms of locations, alternative
sites that were aimed at drawing dog walkers away from Exmouth and from Dawlish
Warren would be ideal. There are case studies and a range of studies that discuss
the importance of ‘dog-friendliness’ and provide case studies for how such features 41
can be enhanced (Edwards & Knight 2006; Barlow & Hart 2008; Hale 2008;
Thank you Ken - a very good precis of the draft document.
Despite the gloss TDC have put on these proposals, the fact is that we have yet another incursion into the green fields around our town, yielding a further 100 additional houses beyond the strategic need already set in Plan Teignbridge - coupled with an uncertain timeframe for delivery of key infrastructure and the potential net loss of a number of planned community facilities and services.
As for SANGS, you will know I am opposed to the Compulsory Purchase of Warren Farm, which would yield just 21 hectares. Irrespective of my own position on this matter, with the total requirement for SANGS rising to some 35+hectares (given the addition of the above 100 houses together with the 350 at the Redrow site) I am sure many will be disappointed to learn also that none of the land within DA2/DA6 area is yet being nominated as a permanent SANGS,
This land that is presently being touted to be a temporary Sangs.
Do you know who owns it?
And yes a thank you from me as well to Ken. I started to look at the documents yesterday and
couldn't see the wood for the trees to use an apt phrase. Your precis of what is being proposed is very useful and clear.
The Temporary SANGS site would fall within development sites 2, 3 and 4. I believe sites 2 and 3 are owned by different members of the Jeffrey family, while site 4 is Langdon Hospital / NHS Trust land.
Would you know if TDC will have to pay these landowners for the privilege of using their
land as a temporary Sangs?
There is on the planning application website today a letter from the agent for application 14/01577/MAJ stating that the applicant has no intention of paying or making any access to the rest of the DA2 site other than a walking / cycle route. He quotes advice given by Simon Thornley on the 20th April 2015, long before this current document was prepared and as I stated in email with questions to Mr Thornley on the 8th September that we the residents of Dawlish are just not being told the truth on any of the plans for this area. The residents and users of Secmaton Lane are going to have to endure the traffic involved in building 35 houses plus then the access problems of upwards of a possible 60 cars a day using the lane.
Can we as residents force a referendum on the antics of this council and its officers because I vote NO CONFIDENCE
The referendum took place on 7 May.
1. If I am right in thinking (and I think I am) that TDC have to have enough Sangs in place before Redrow can have their new homes occupied then there is a time pressure on TDC
to get this temporary Sangs business sorted out.
2. Believe Redrow's timetable for first homes being ready for occupation is end of this year/beginning of next.
3.So......TDC have to have the required amount of Sangs in place before that time. That's not very long off at all.
4. Therefore do you think that gives the above mentioned landowners a strong negotiating hand with regard to TDC? or, as some might say, that those landowners have got TDC over a barrel?
When it comes to SANGS it is hard to know just who has who over a barrel - however it is difficult to imagine that Redrow would not have preferred to have found 6.24 hectares of land to have put forward for SANGS themselves rather than cough up a not inconsiderable amount of money to TDC for the priviledge UNLESS there was already some sort of firm agreement.
And on the subject of agreements, it looks like the so-called 'gentleman's agreement' (not to bring forward applications seperately for DA2 before a deal is done on overall delivery) now appears to have been consigned to history. Planning Application 15/02468/MAJ, DAWLISH - Gatehouse Farm refers.
(Public Notice in today's Dawlish Post - with the item also appearling on next week's DTC Planning Committee agenda).
(who owns this land? The Alf half of the Jeffery family or the George half?)
Look at the site of the planning application above. What is immediately adjacent to it is the children's nursery at Gatehouse Farm. This is from Ken's posting above.
A link road is planned from Gatehouse Farm to the Exeter Road (A379) at Sainsbury roundabout, for these homes. HOWEVER they are not insisting that developers have to use the link road to bring in materials from the Exeter Road end. Elm Grove Road will be the main access. This presents unacceptable and unnecessary ongoing noise, dirt and RISK TO SCHOOL CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOLS!
and I'll add to the above that until the proposed road coming in from the Sainsbury's roundabout is built onto the land that is scheduled for development then the amount of site traffic on Elm Grove Road will continue as more and more of the scheduled housing developments take place.
It therefore also follows that with more houses there are more people with cars thus there will be more and more residential vehicles using Elm Grove Road.
The road leading to/from Sainsbury's roundabout needs building before any more development takes place!
I've often wondered why there are two lanes at that roundabout when approaching it from Cofton. Now we know that it's to future-proof it and enable a right-turn filter there.
Posters now being put up about all this and I understand flyers will be delivered to households the Secmaton side of town.
Page Not Found.
Well it's just worked for me.
Click on it again and then scroll down to find the posting by Daniel Cook.
Have just left a posting on it from Lynne's link.
Thanks Ken. Must be a mobile phone issue with the link then.
If you or others you know cannot make it to the leisure centre next Wednesday you can still make your views known in other ways. Read this:
From Friday 4th September 2015 until 12pm on Friday 16th October 2015 TDC will be consulting on the following draft documents and would like to invite you to comment on one or more of which you may be interested in :
The documents can be viewed:
· Online via www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planteignbridge
· At Forde House Offices, Brunel Road, Newton Abbot during normal office hours 8.30am–5pm Monday–Thursday and 8.30am–4.30pm Friday
· Public libraries in Teignbridge
Please let TDC have your comments by completing the relevant online survey using the above web link. This is a convenient and simple way of responding. Alternatively you may respond by e-mail or by completing a paper copy of the response form.
E-mails should be sent to: email@example.com If you respond via e-mail please include :
· Your postal address
· Which document you are interested in
· Which part of the document you are interested in
· What changes to the document you want to see
· If you don’t have an e-mail address TDC can send you hard copies of the response form
Letters or paper response forms can be sent by post to: Spatial Planning Consultations, Teignbridge District Council, Forde House, Brunel Road, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 4XX
TDC are holding two public consultation Drop-In events at :
· Dawlish Leisure Centre on Wednesday 23rd September 2015 from 2.00pm until 8.00pm
· Methodist Church Hall, Somerset Place, Teignmouth on Wednesday 30th September 2015 from 2.00pm until 8.00pm
Please can someone post that info on Eyes of Dawlish
Wonder if EoD readers would also benefit from reading (on the same thread) about this?
which refers to this
Just spotted this on my walk today.
We are doing what TDC should be doing, upto Monday they had not even advised the leisure centre that space was needed for the consultation on the 23rd. So we may turn up and find nobody there.
In which case I'd say that might just say it all about TDC and its future planning abilities.
In answer to my question
The draft document talks of the DA2 area having at least 860 homes, is there any upper limit that the number could rise to or is it totally open ended. After all the SANGS calculation, wherever the SANGS area finally is, needs a number of properties as its calculator.
I received the following answer
3 – the number of dwellings to be provided will reflect the capacity of the site taking account of constraints and infrastructure requirements.
Any advance on 1000 plus houses, without Warren Grove.
Oh Sorry the question was asked of Simon Thornley the
Business Manager Strategic Place
Teignbridge District Council
I was out of town when the 'consultation' took place. However, I have asked some who attended what they thought of it.
Lots of words beginning with 'f' (eg fiasco, futile, farcical).
And the letters page of this week's Gazette seems to confirm that impression.
There is a town council meeting this coming Wednesday.
Item 14 on the agenda concerns the town council's response to this consultation.
It will be interesting to see what the town council has to say.
And why was this, whatever you want to call it, held in the busy reception area of the leisure centre when literally just down the road is the Red Rock Centre, a community building remember(!), whose ground floor is no longer used?
Surely the ground floor of the Red Rock would have been so much more of an appropriate location for such a public event?
I keep being told by those who went to this 'consultation' that there was no means by which comments about what
is being proposed could be left at the time. No recording of who visited and how they could be contacted. In fact no written
records of any kind were made.
Is that right?
In which case can I urge all those who have comments to make on these proposals to do so directly to TDC (see my posting dated 16.9.15 above for how to do this).
Will what we, the people of Dawlish, think about it all be taken into account? Well, I know what I think. But. If we don't respond
then that gives 'them' the easy retort of 'no-one raised this issue or that issue'.
So do send your opinions in to TDC.
You are correct you are correct Lynne, no notes no records and the comments form to be filled in and posted to them does not have an address for posting it to. So there you have it when you have filled in your suggestions put it in the bin because the council does not want to know them. The whole excercise is pointless it's a done deal with the land owners all we get from TDC is we can't do that. We group of four will keep on trying. We are concentrating on Secmaton lane first as that goes to planning on the 20th and TDC say if highways says it's ok then they cannot refuse it. So 16 houses already have permission to access the lane for vehicles and building and if the other app goes through then it will be a total of 51 houses that access the lane for building and vehicle access. All ok,d by Devon County Council highways dept. It's behind them that TDC are hiding.
To paraphrase a certain 1970s/80s tennis player - They Cannot Be Serious!
Heavy plant traffic using Secmaton Lane to go to/from those building sites? Have the people at DCC Highways Department seen the width of the lane?
Just posted on the Facebook page of George Osborne
George I dare you to come to Dawlish in Devon to see what the changes in planning laws are doing to our town. Green fields are being built on and the population has no say in what is happening. Schools have heavy construction traffic passing it all day and small country lanes have planning applications for multiple houses, lanes that have no passing places except for people's driveways. The changes bought in by the last government have left ordinary people with no voice at all. If you email me I will supply address so you can come and see for your self what bad changes to laws mean to the ordinary working man. Regards Ken Parker
I applaud your effort Ken, but do you think that coke snorting, elitist moron will care. He doesnt care about how his policies are killing people and driving them to despair, so I wouldnt hold out much hope
I am new to the site and it is good to have people out there that can let others know what is happening in the community. Ken it is good that you have flagged up local issues to George Osbourne, but I agree with roberta unless it directly affects them they just don't want to know.
I can only try to highlight the faults in planning laws by whatever means are open to me. I have lived most of my life and seen many mistakes made by politicians of all parties and all I am trying to do, with others, is to make an effort to try and ensure that todays children are left a land in which they have good laws.
I went to the leisure centre to see what the Dawlish people were talking about on here and elsewhere. I felt it was badly organised and the people that were asking me to make a comment to the Council were each telling me slightly different things, so now I am completely confused about what is going on and if what was said was true or just scaremongering. I think Lynne is right it was not the best setting as people kept pushing by to go into the Leisure Centre itself, not the best being in the corridor. It would be good if we all had another chance of seeing the plans, but in a better setting where we could actually see the boards and ask the people in charge a few questions. Maybe Dawlish Town Council could do something, because surely some of them must know and could explain exactly what is going on if Teignbridge won't.
@Barbarawils68 the basic faults with the draft framework document are as follows
1 There is no relief for Elm Grove Road area including the schools from the heavy traffic using that road to access the site. Commensense says build the link road from Sainsburys and make all construction traffic use that and not Elm Grove Road.
2 The primary school has now been recognised to be far over subscribed but because the land behind the school has been taken by more houses the only land available is the school field. It has been said that land will be made available elsewhere for parking and playing fields, that is not a good use of teachers time to walk young children to a field elsewhere.
3 In the original plan there was to be a doctors surgery on the new site, this has been scrapped and instead Barton Surgery which is already handling more people than it can cope with will be expanded. The money that will be paid by the builders in lieu of the health centre can only be used for building work and not doctors, so everbody will still have to travel to the otherside of Dawlish to try to see a doctor. That coupled with parking problems at busy times at the surgery and the traffic problems of getting around the town.
4 The original plan said no houses to have vehicle access to Secmaton Lane but a landowner has put in an application that has access for 35 houses to the lane for cars. There are already 3 applications that have been approved for 16 houses having vehicle access to the lane that makes a total of 51 houses that would be built using Secmaton Lane for building material deliveries and the cars to exit to the exeter road once the houses are built.. This lane has no passing places, an overloaded sewage system and is used more and more by pedestrians and cyclists to go down to Sainsbury's and the Warren footpath. As the rest of the houses on the DA2 site get developed they will also have pedestrian access to Secmaton Lane.
5 The drainage system in the area is totally overloaded and the only way to improve this is to put a new system in along the link road but if the link road is not finished in one stretch the only place for sewage to go is down the sewer pipe under Secmaton Lane and this pipe is already overloaded.
6 The original plan was for 860 houses this has been changed by the district council and from the land now available will be nearer to 1000 houses. On top of this will be the 350 houses on the Warren Grove and the remainder of the Bovis Cavanagh site still being built.
We also requested that the consultation event took place over a period of time to give more time for people to attend but Teignbridge District Council
Nobody was trying to scaremonger we are just trying to get a development plan in place that is fair to the existing residents, safe to existing residents and gives the town all that it should have and not a bodged plan that only gives Dawlish houses and not proper infrastructure.
Hope this helps
Very clearly put Ken.
Secmaton lane today another delivery for the building of one house, how many like this for 51
If anybody is wondering why the mud on the road in Secmaton Lane, this is why
In the UK we need to build 250,000 houses per year just to keep up with population expansion in the last 12 months only 135,000 have been built and with immigration topping 300,000 per year we will need more, so get used to it people its only going to get worse.
The lane does look narrow after the corner/field gate when I walked up the lane, but every other house in the lane must have had their building materials brought in the same way. I have looked at the planning permissions and of the 51 houses said to be accessing the lane not all will have to travel the whole of the narrow lane to access the main road and some will enter and leave Secmaton Lane via Little Week Lane where after a short narrow section the roads widen out into Estate Roads.
From the A379 coming up the lane three are just past the bridge at the widest part. As to the 35 it is only outline and this is the upper figure so could go down with any luck for those living in Secmaton lane. As far as I can see the access is where the lorry is in the first picture between the gate and the telephone post. That is 38 close to the entrance of the lane near the main road, not ideal but nearer the widest point. There are 3 opposite the entrance of Little Week Lane, so they can use that lane and go through the Whimpy Estate or down Secmaton Lane. The final 10 of the 51 are still at outline planning stage and will access the lane opposite Secmaton Rise. Now that I have looked into it every house above Little Week Lane has an alternative route out through a narrow bit, then on wide estate roads.
I am less worried about this end of Secmaton Lane knowing what I know now and I am more concerned about the housing that will be built at the other end of Secmaton Lane that have to pass 2 schools without the link road being in. This is what I will comment on to Teignbridge, there should be no more development accessing Elm Grove Road until the road system has been upgraded and an alternative access provided for the safety of all in that area of Dawlish.
Sometime in the not so distant past Devon County Council decided to stop Secmaton Lane being a vehicular thoroughfare around the back end of town - such that part of it is now off bounds to vehicles and is for pedestrians and cyclists only.
This closure happened before I moved here so I have no history of when it happened and the arguments that were put forward for it to happen.
Can anyone enlighten me please.
I haven't found the exact date, but judging by what I have found online it was after 2001 and before this in 2005. I have highlighted the important bit.
Q 19 Are there dedicated/segregated cycle routes linking residential areas to the town centre and to local schools?
The second route is from the Shutterton Bridge/Littleweek Lane to Gatehouse/Stockton Hill - 'a very, very steep hill... This route is mainly dedicated with no segregation or dedicated path in parts. To go to Gatehouse School or Dawlish Community College there are no Roads to cross but Elm Grove Road would need to be crossed on the returnjourney. A busy and dangerous road at school start/finish times. Travel time is about 10 mins. It is shorter than 2 miles. In the main it is unlit. To carry on to the town along this route is a little dangerous as the incline on Stockton Hill is very steep and narrow with many cars zooming up it at 40mph plus. A dangerous speed on a single width unlit road.
In short these routes are far from ideal and seem to have been introduced as the bare minimum to keep up with government legislation/agenda 21 and for the smallest possible cost to the budget. With a little more thought and effort they could be improved.
So I guess DCC chose the lane because there was no housing either side of the majority of it and was easy to achieve, possibly with little local resistance. I will ask around, and if I find out anything I will post.
Thank you. I've just (scan) read the document to which you refer and can't say as I find anything there that answers my questions but the dates that you mention (after 2001 but before 2005) do ring vague bells with me.
I've e-mailed DCC Highways department and asked them the why and when questions
@Barbarawils68 the final 10 cannot use secmaton rise as this to is closed off to traffic so they to will use the lane. users who live in the top end of the lane tend to use the little week cut only if they are heading to town or newton abbot. as to the 35 only being outline, in the local plan all houses on the da2 site were to access to the new link road. as the planning inspector geoff salter said when he approved the dawlish area leaving Secmaton Lane as an attractive pedestrian / cyclist route.So the land owner is trying to get out of paying their share of the cost of the link road and bridges.
Ken I pointed out the 10's access is opposite Secmaton Rise and not that they can access that way. However, that lane is quite wide and would take 2 cars, so it is a shame DCC closed it off. If it was reopened they could have put a 'no entrance' at the junction where the new houses would access the lane stopping any traffic above that point travelling down the lane towards the A379. That would include the new site, the farm and Veryan Close. Even better would have been leave Secmaton Lane from Veryan Close to Secmaton Rise as the pedestrian/cycle way and divert the road into where the proposed pedestrian/cycle path is on the site for 10. The owner might not like it, but it would be better for the public. Only and idea, since then the road would be wide enough to take all vehicles, because it must be a struggle for delivery lorries to get to Veryan Close since it is so narrow. Have any lorries got stuck before?
As you well know it was closed off to stop Secmaton Lane being a rat run from the estates up that way. Secmaton lane should be used by existing residents and walkers / cyclists from the new estates and the Gatehouse area. It will also probably be used by children from the Warren Grove site to access the schools. In addition take a good look at the road width in the pedestrian area of Secmaton Rise there is not enough width to make an exit there, unless of course the house to the side is knocked down.
I take exception to that remark about the rat run, I like many others were not in living in Dawlish when the road was closed, so cannot comment. Secmaton Lane area has always been known as the posh end of town I have been told and since I live the otherside I don't have much call to walk that way.
Who knows what school the Warren Grove children will go to, if there is space at Starcross Primary School they will probably be offered a place there, so the children nearer Gatehouse Primary School can walk to school. Starcross surgery also covers the site and part of Secmaton Lane, Little Week Road and that area, so the new people might choose to go there rather than Barton Surgery, who knows? If new residents join the Starcross practice it will be forced to expand, maybe they might put a satellite surgery north of Dawlish, like the Barton Surgery have theirs at Dawlish Warren, once again who knows? All we can say is they are expanding Dawlish and none of us know the full truth of what is happening.
As to Secmaton Rise nothing is sacred, if this was deemed a good access point by DCC the house would go, look at the people losing homes due to HS2. We can do our best to slow progress or mitigate it, but we can never stop it!
"As to Secmaton Rise nothing is sacred, if this was deemed a good access point by DCC the house would go, look at the people losing homes due to HS2".
Yep! So true. The compulsory purchase order reigns supreme.,
Never, ever, forget that folks!
You think your home is your castle? Not if the local authority or central government wants it, it ain't!
(example: the owner of Warren Farm does not wish to sell his land to TDC so that it can become a coastal park SANGS. So what can TDC do, ultimately, if they still want it and the owner does not wish to sell? TDC will issue a compulsory purchase order, that's what)
I agree Lynne, it is dreadful what they are doing to the owner of Warren Farm. I feel the the park should be close to the new houses like many others in town, and I am hoping that the temporary SANGS, will eventually be made permanent.
Right, back to the official stance regarding Secmaton Lane. I think this clarifies what part of Secmaton Lane is classed as the Cycle/Pedestrian area and the rest is residential road for use by all vehicles and others. I have underlined the important wording.
Devon Local Transport Plan 2001 - 2006
Cycling and walking route, Secmaton Lane, Dawlish
Secmaton Lane has been closed to cars in order to create a safe cycling/walking route to and from Gate House Primary School and Dawlish Community College. Parents are able to drop off children at the Sandy Lane car park and a virtual bus will take them safely to school and back.
This being the case, any part of Secmaton Lane that is not closed to cars DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE DESIGNATED CYCLING AND WALKING ROUTE ONLY. Also as I walked the lane a cycle sign pointed down Little Week Lane to the A379, even the on road cycle way is officially diverted from the lower lane. So below Little Week Lane in law it is a multi use non-designated road and until it is redesignated as anything different it will remain that. Therefore, building lorries have as much right to use the lane as delivery lorries and removal lorries, there is no distinction. Farm machinery is large, yet I have heard no one complain about these vehicles using the road to access the fields off of the lane and there are a few I saw on my walk. At least building lorries once the housing is built will cease, but the others delivering will still keep coming and more so as more people order online. Or are the residents going to ban deliveries of food goods and other items or even the bin lorry because it is large! I don't think so!
Believe this planning application will be heard at the TDC planning committee meeting on the 20th of this
Click on associated documents to bottom left of page to read planning docs.
Note the contents of the letter from applicant/agent dated Friday 2nd October.
The full length of Secmaton Lane is defined by Sustrans as the cycle link to Dawlish warren http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map and key in EX7 0LT which is the post code for part of Secmaton Lane. The sign at the junction of Secmaton and Little week lane has I believe been moved out postion at some time.
Agreed the building lorries will not be there for ever but they will be for at least a year or more. Then after 51 houses, at the south west average of 1.3 cars per household based on the 2011 census, would result in a possible 66 vehicle movements per day plus of course all of the delivery traffic / visitors etc.
In the Local Plan the site by the lane is defined as Development Area 5 and all of land is part of DA2 and the inspector Geoff Salter stated
“The site (DA2) is the main strategic allocation for Dawlish, lying on the north-west side of the town. Part of the allocation already has planning permission for 96 dwellings. Even with the additional housing on DA1, the Council was reluctant to reduce the dwelling numbers on the site for viability reasons, principally the need for sufficient a number of homes to help fund the necessary link road. This would be an estate road capable of being served by buses, leaving Secmaton Lane as an attractive cycle and pedestrian route.”
Very interesting quote from the Local Plan Inspector, Ken.
But the number of houses in DA2 was increased by 350 in September 2012 NOT because of viability reasons, but because our Dawlish TDC ward councillors preferred them to be there rather than at DA1 (aka Shutterton Park, aka Warren Grove). Indeed, senior planning officer Simon Thornley advised AGAINST moving the allocation from DA1 to DA2 at that time.
Whatever happened at DA1 is now history (becoming a 350 'windfall' housing site, off the Plan Teignbridge radar in September 2013) however it is clear that at DA2 viability was certainly NOT expected to have been a problem. Not only was it given a 350 house uplift but also subsequently a large increase in developable area (refer 'Main Modification' MM4, January 2014) - some 5.7 hectares (14.2 acres) of which just half was expected to be used to accomodate the employment land lost at DA1, with the remainder set aside for 'mixed' use.
That TDC have come back for yet more land just eighteen months after Plan Teignbridge was found 'sound' by the Plan Inspector, simply beggars belief. Small wonder then that at its monthly meeting last Wednesday, Dawlish Town Council - by a considerable majority - resolved to reject the extension of DA2 as proposed in the current consultation document, which would see development encroach yet further into the Dawlish countryside.
Furthermore, with the breaking news delivered just moments earlier by Devon County Councillor, John Clatworthy, that the signalised junction planned for Elm Grove Road / Exeter Road will NOT be going ahead (due to Exeter Road width issues) the Council also resolved to ask Teignbridge to work with Devon County Council to bring forward the building of the link road before any new development.
Finally, having heard from representatives of a group of Secmaton Lane residents who were also present at the meeting, Dawlish Town Council further resolved to seek support for them in a bid to overcome drainage and development / road access concerns in the vicinity.
I hope this information will help others in forming individual responses to the public consultation.
Affordable housing. There are issues brewing here. Central government saying no more below market rents, extension of right to buy to housing association tenants and emphasis on home ownership. How will this (and more?) impact on those needing
affordable rented housing in Dawlish?
From this week's Inside Housing:
"David Cameron on Wednesday announced councils will no longer be able to insist on social or affordable rent in planning agreements. Instead they will have to accept Starter Homes - properties discounted by 20% for first time buyers - as affordable housing. Where homes are delivered by commercial house builders there would be no housing association involvement".
And is my memory playing tricks on me or am I correct in thinking that back in 2011 when all this need for new housing in Dawlish argument kicked off, wasn’t it the case that we were told that it would only be by having such open market owner occupier housing that the desperate need for affordable rented housing in Dawlish could be met.
Its beenlies, lies and more lies since they came to power. Same allover the Country
I've got a feeling that 'call me Dave' and his recently announced Conservative Party policies (see above) may just have driven a coach and horses right through TDC's Affordable Homes policy.
This is TDC policy; "the requirement for the affordable housing, as specified in Local Plan policy WE2 will be broken down to provide a tenure split of 75% affordable rented homes and 25% intermediate homes".
Does number 10 know that?
There is a Housing Bill in the offing. It will be extremely interesting to see what it contains and how, when the Bill becomes an Act, it will impact on TDC's Local Plan and DA2 in particular.
Note that the Conservatives seem to have redefined the term affordable.
Affordable housing now means (or will mean) properties discounted by 20% for first time buyers.
This will make you laugh. Sorry, I don't know if it's available on the BBC website.
(David Cameron visiting Kingsteignton)
Mr C our beloved PM has praised Teighnbridge for getting on with house building his words "they have got it right" so if David says its ok it must be.
So what happened to localism then?
I thought local authorities were the ones who were given the right to decide how many homes were needed and over how long a period and what type of homes (% of private homes to affordable homes and then within the affordable home category what % affordable rent and what % affordable to buy eg shared ownership).
Seems call me Dave is moving the goal posts (again).
Remember The Big Society,the mans a habitual liar
I think it is going back to the old days when councils, built and ran their own housing stock. They are promoting Self Build, so why can't they use the same principle to build houses themselves for social rent, as it is meant to be 10-20% cheaper this way. Employ local builders/tradesmen who haven't got shareholders to consider and actually put money back into the local economy at the same time.
Thanks for the clip, Flo.
Seems that the Teignbridge Local Plan model is now going to be used by our government to beat recalcitrant councils over the head. Make of that what you will - but it was interesting to hear DC apparently supporting the Local Plan as it now stands. "The plans are good..." he says.
But just in case I got that quote out of context he also said yesterday "the builders know where they can't build..."
Seems that nobody has told him what's been going on regarding Dawlish of late.
Just four days to go to make Dawlish voices heard WRT to the NW Secmaton Lane public consultation. Deadline Friday.
Deadline Friday 12 noon to be precise.
And suggest you submit day before at latest if poss as I've been caught out before (albeit not with TDC) in terms of these deadlines. It is not that you should send your submission before 12 noon on Friday but that TDC should receive it by 12 noon on Friday. The two are not the same.
TDC will not necessarily receive your submission within nanoseconds of your sending it.
He obviously has not spoken to george Osborne re my email to him. Thiis group of so called public servants are not working for the good of the community. Build at any price and to hell with the local population. Any bets with all these additional houses our council tax never comes down.
The problem is every community round the country is having the same conversations at the end of the day we need housing and what ever we do the houses will be built, my prediction we will have thousands of new homes in the area over the next few years.
Can I raise one point I don't hear any other residents writing or campaigning regarding Secmaton Lane apart from the vocal 4 and their partners. Their points are partly valid, however I get a feeling it is NIMBYism, they have their homes and just because it is spoiling their view, which you do not buy with the house, they are denying others their chance to have their home. Highways have no objection and the Council doesn't and as far as I can see the land within DA2 is the same land allocated in 2001, so they have known long enough that is was coming! Judging by the scale of development elsewhere they could have been looking out on upwards of 70 units, blocks of flats, terraced houses, 3 story town houses like the ones near Newton Abbot hospital, so if it is knocked down to 30 nice houses I think they should count themselves lucky. I am guessing it is the fact that they are accessing the lane is enabling the number to be so low, if they were to link by road to the DA2 from the start I cannot see the council settling for anything less than double that proposed. The chances are there will be few families that buy these and probably a high percentage of retired which makes up the lane anyway, judging from the 2011 census, so fewer cars might be added to the lane than we are being led to believe by the resident protest group. The article in the paper was quite enlightening since the picture of the lorry was at the access point to the site, so it is only the short distance from the road to that point any traffic would go. As to passing places in the lane only being peoples drives it is not true, there is a field gateway and you cannot use most people's drives, as the residents have put chains accross them so vehicles can't pull in to pass, which is very helpful! I guess it is a form of protest, but can only affect other users of the lane and makes the new access to the site even more needed as a large passing place, not less! So I will watch this space and now continue to follow this saga with interest.
I don't live in Secmaton Lane. I do occasionally walk down there however. I am gobsmacked that Devon County Council highways department think it okay for construction traffic to use it.
But I am not a professional. Just a resident who doesn't live in Secmaton Lane (or Carhaix Way for that matter).
Does that make me a nimby?
of course @Lynne. some people think that having any objections is nimbyism. the problem is people living in that area can see the particular problems with the way things are being planned - of course - but if they raise it, it's nimbyism. i live near secmaton lane but not on it and can see potential problems. as for it being the posh end of town, not sure that's the case, there are 'nice' areas dotted all over dawlish.
(edit) Can I just point out that I'm aware of where capital letters should go but everytime I type, this forum resets to lower case.
@Barbarawils68 lets get in straight this is not about stopping houses being built, it's about having the correct type of property with the correct access. the application is for houses but what is across the lane from the site is in the main bungalows or dormer bungalows. the residents of the lane know that something is going to be built on that land but it should be in keeping with the area. the main argument that we residents put forward is that secmaton lane is not suitable for the volume of traffic that is going to use the lane. never mind what devon highways say about temporary access for building purposes, we all know how developers get planning conditions removed, look at what is now going to happen in carhaix way. all because a planning official agrees to a change submitted by the developer, so now that area gets traffic blight.
I Am not denying anybody the right to have a home of their own, what I object to is major changes to a local plan that was agreed. Changes that are being made without regard to the infrastructure in the area. Were are the houses that are to be built going to be connected to for sewage, water, gas and electric that will all come from the lane when it should be part of a comprehensive design led plan that brings all of these services in from the link road.
Changes that are being agreed to between landowners / developers and council officers without regard to the local population or to the safety of the people that live in the area.
I was going to write 'come back Localism all is forgiven' but I don't think it was ever really with us, do you?
@Lynne i agree with you it did'nt even get started, still i am posting the dawlish gazette to george today with my letter. lets see if he even reads it.
@flo the typing problems seems to be a windows problems, when i use my ipad typing is fine.
No localism was a dream, one that I wanted too, we should be able to decide what is best for our community, all I can see is it is damage limitation. This is the only field facing East so the services will have to link to the existing lane, where as the rest all face west so all their services will be directed that way. I contacted a friend in South West Water and she asked someone she knows and they have said Secmaton Lane's problems were due to builders dropping debris into the sewerage system and it was settling at the top of Secmaton Rise, therefore why sewage was bubbling up into the field. This has been removed, so there should be no more issues, has anyone else heard this? Has there been anymore issues recently? I guess it makes sense, but doesn't help those who had sewage in their gardens at the time.
As for localism, I don't know, but if Teignbridge don't appear to do anything then the Government will step in and it could be even worse. Ken maybe offer to help with the design and layout of the site if the number is acceptable, ask to have the heights restricted etc. I cannot advise on access, as I can only assume Highways know what they are doing and are working within set guidelines.
I was in a meeting last December when SW water claimed the sewage problem was due to builders dropping debris into the system and they would sort it out. It appears that 10 months on they are still using the same lame excuse for their over-burdened systems which they do not want to spend any more money on!
The sewage problem is three fold
1 The Strongvox site the tanks are to big and the pumps unreliable, still yet to be put right by Strongvox, basically the sewage in the tank rots when the pumps don't switch on and when they are manually switched rotten sewage is pumped into Secmaton Lane.
2 The pipe from the Bovis / Cavanagh site under the field of Secmaton Farm is the incorrect type and it has sagged in places and the join to the moled pipe at the top of Secmaton Rise is out of line, this problem SWW say will be cured when all of the houses on the B / C site are occupied. In the mean time sewage regularly runs down the Secmaton Farm field and tankers are needed to take the sewage away to clear the blockage and to clear out the pipe in the lane.
3 The pipe in Secmaton Lane is at the end of its capacity as is the pumping station at the top of the lane.
All of this information has been extracted from SWW at various times in meetings attended by us 4 nimbys that at various times have suffered sewage problems we are the ones that have had to fight to get the problems sorted. Indeed we are still battling on.
Oh and don't forget the regular escapes of sewage into Shutterton Brook because of the problems with the pipe in Exeter Road and the tank under the garden of Deodar this event also leads to sewage flooding properties at the lower end of the lane.
That sounds awful, however the upto 35 are not joining at the top of the lane, they are almost at the pumping station and I have been told next to the two holding tanks in the Deodar. This being the case their waste will be in correct sized pipes and have the least distance to travel to leave the lane! As with all things outline is only in principle and therefore it could be years before the first ever got built, long enough for the sites mentioned to be completed and sewage issue rectified. It is not like outline permission means starting building tomorrow, all has to be sorted at matters reserved and that could take ages since things keep changing at planning level. So keep on to SWW, but remember this is only outline they are going for and if things are not resolved before the full planning, then the site will go on hold until the departments are happy for it to progress.
Right opposite two of the properties that have had sewage on their properties. How nice for them, I will keep saying it, all services should go out to the new link road including building traffic, sewage power and cars. It does not matter when building starts if the application goes ahead in its present form then the existing residents of the lane will have their lives disrupted when they do not need to.
Ken if you feel that strongly are you speaking at the meeting on the 20th, I think that's the date I read somewhere? So many just talk but do not act and I must say I have rarely stood up to be counted. If you are going to the meeting can you let us know the decision one way or the other, I think a lot of us will be interested in the outcome.
Does anyone know what TDC's planning committee decided this morning re the planning application that Barbarawils68 and
Ken have been discussing? (planning ref 14/01577/Maj)
Councillors very much against access from the lane but decided that the application was premature in advance of the draft framework agreement and deferred the application until after it is signed off. Application is not objected to on the grounds of properties being built although we in the lane think it should be bungalows not houses. Problems also exist with the old problem of sewage. SWW have stated that there is no more capacity in the Secmaton Sewer so the drains cannot come out into the lane without major work, or go out to the link road. Which lets face it is the most sensible way.
Thanks for that, Ken. What if they do not get planning? What will they do with the land then? Someone I knew was turned down some years ago and applied to have a pig farm on his land and got planning for that instead. The council couldn't object since he was carrying out a farming activity off of a country lane on agricultural land. I am not saying it will happen in this case, but it makes you think!
They will get planning but hopefully not until the link road is in place, then all services, building material and cars will follow the link road. Which is what according to the original local plan should happen.
A friend of mine lives at Trusham and was at the meeting to Save the Cridford pub. It was quite interesting the Dawlish case, but one concern was that all the landowners had to contribute to the link road and the bridge and without all of them then neither would be built. She also said that the meeting was to decide if the land was suitable for planning and the access was not up for discussion as that was to be considered at all matters reserved, but the councillors couldn't get past the access. The councillors were so focused on this that there was a chance that they could then leave it open to appeal because of imposing unreasonable conditions for refusal, therefore it was decided to defer the case. It was quite heated by all accounts. One concern was the residents of the Redrow site using Secmaton Lane to access the schools, however, with all the dog mess up there and with little streetlighting you wouldn't catch me walking my kids when they were younger to school that way. Now they are considering putting a gate north of Gatehouse School grounds which will act as an access directly from the new estates behind, I would rather walk along the main road and cut into Little Week Lane, up over to Carhaix and into school that way. My reasoning is 1) there is proper pavements, 2) over looked by properties which is safer and 3) has good street lighting, as don't forget lots of children stay on for afterschool clubs these days. When I walked the Secmaton Lane it was midday, and unnerving with no one around most of the way, so you wouldn't catch me walking it at night as you do not know who is about. Also being so near to Langdon Hospital and their escape rate it makes you think if you needed help who would hear and as it is not connected with anywhere for a long distance how would you get away, this is what interconnectivity is all about safety and at the moment the lane I feel is not that safe if there was an incident! This reason is the same one that the 10 at Secmaton Farm had to have the pedestrian/ cycle route inside the site, so why is it fine for the rest of the lane!
"Also being so near to Langdon Hospital and their escape rate"
I don't know what the escape rate is but given that there are people in the hospital because of being found guilty in the courts of violent acts, I do wonder at the mindset of those thinking it okay for loads of houses to be built not only near the hospital but also virtually bang opposite it.
There, I've said it.
@Lynne one of the jeffery's, not sure which one but i believe it's the same one that owns lady's mile.
It's Secmaton Farm and I think that is the owner of Lady's Mile? Can anyone confirm this.
If Dawlish Town doesn't challenge the expansion of the Langdon site then how many more houses are they going to put there. The Hospital have already the benefit of 2 hectares of employment land moved outside of the DA2 so they can put more housing on their land, how do we know they will not move the remaining hectare off site for even more houses. What guarantees have we, since there is no infrastructure in place, not just roads, but also healthcare, school places etc. We started out with 860, but it looks like it will end up nearer 1,000 new homes within DA2 area alone, and over 2,000 with all the rest being constructed. Therefore, Area 3 needs to come forward with the rest, else the plan does not work, as the other areas need the link road. This being the case what are Dawlish Town Council doing about it? Or is it like the SANGS they are quite on the subject.
Maybe Gary Taylor can help us understand what is going on?
Ken I guess you will be quiet on this, as it was your name I assume on the boards in Secmaton Lane, therefore if it doesn't directly affect you, why keep the protest up. So are you against the DA2 as it stands? If you are why haven't you voiced an opinion on this site and called for its delay until a further consultation is called? I look forward to your reply.
As Gary is vice chair of the Dawlish Town Council's planning committee and is also involved in other ways
with what is going on (or not!) with all the proposed developments in DA2 it may be that he has to hold his
own counsel at the moment. If I am wrong in that then I am sure he will come on here to let me and the rest of us know.
There is a town council planninng meeting on Thursday evening (29th Oct). The Langdon hospital planning app is not on the agenda
but this planning app is, 15/02468/Maj.http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=15/02468/MAJ&MN=Y
Quite likely when the Dawlish town council planning committee meets again next month the Langdon Hospital development
planning application will be on the agenda then.
Now, I cannot, not for the life of me, think that the Dawlish Town Council planning committee, not least because of everything
else that has happened recently concerning DA2 and the public consultation exercise, will not request via one of our district councillors that the Langdon Hospital planning application goes to committee rather than be decided by a planning officer.
For those who wish to make their thoughts known about all of this why not contact Dawlish councillors involved in planning matters?
Here are the names of the town councillors who sit on the town planning committee; Pauline Bloomfield (Chair), Gary Taylor (Vice Chair), Greg Fenne, Alison Foden, Graham Price, Martin Wrigley, Carole Tamlyn, Rosalind Prowse.
Members of the public can also speak at the meeting. Contact Dawlish Town council to find out how to
I think all of Dawlish needs to be delayed until everything has been resolved. This includes all of the DA2, since we have enough development with all those passed up by Gatehouse School and now next to Sainsbury's for a few years. Just a thought, since the Langdon application is being run by the people who got planning at what is Sandpipers and Buntings, both outside of the DA2/Local Plan, they must have some influence over the council. I wonder what insider deals have been done that we do not know about and what's the betting that their application goes through by Christmas, whilst earlier applications are delayed and delayed!
The planning apps for what turned out to be Sandpipers and Buntings were both submitted and given outline planning consent before the Local Plan (and thus DA2) was in existence. Ditto the Redrow development by Sainsbury's.
And I'll bet the Langdon application doesn't go through before Christmas not least because another planning application in the DA2 vicinity was not given planning permission at the last TDC planning committee (20.10.15) because:
and does anyone know when we, the public, will get told the outcome of the DA2 masterplan consultation?
I would like to know that one too Lynne.
I see that Langdon 15/02700/MAJ has received a letter from the Biodversity Officer and within it, it states:
•The developer hasn’t proposed alternative mitigation, so presumably they are happy to make a financial contribution, in line with the Joint Approach, towards provision of non-infrastructure recreation mitigation measures. This will be £804 per house, (£160,800 for 200 houses). The contribution needed for the care home will depend on the mobility and independence of the clients.
So maybe another site who will get away with not providing SANGS and give money only, therefore not fulfilling the Natural England requirements. They have a Temporary SANGS provision within the DA2, so maybe they are not going to honour this, so another item the council is not declaring to the public.
I sent this off to TDC planning this morning re the Redrow development at Shutterton Park.
Can all the posts after the 20th of October be put on a seperate link as it is getting very long. I hope you don't mind everyone.
@barbarawill68 Referring to your post 26/10/2015 at 20:24
Your comments about why haven’t I voiced an opinion on this site re DA2 and called for its delay show that you forget who started this post off in the first place, and who was amongst those that had leaflets printed and walked miles to inform residents of what was going on if the Planning Department and developers got their own way, a group of 4 residents who could see what was happening and did their best to alert the people of Dawlish.
I like a lot of people are being put out by the number of houses being forced upon the residents of Dawlish. As far as I can calculate at present the total number being built on DA2 assigned land is 951 and the rest of the applications as far as I can figure out is 789 that make a total of 1740. At an average used by TDC of 2.3 per house gives a population increase of 4002. This represents a 30.5% increase in the population of Dawlish and the surrounding area compared to the 2011 census.
For that we get no extra doctors surgery apart from an increase at Barton Surgery, our schools get classrooms on the school fields. On the plus side we seem at last to be getting an overhaul of the sewage system in the area. Let’s not forget the extra traffic that is going to hit the A379 in both directions because with all the grandiose plans for employment areas we can all for see what is going to happen to them. How much of Shutterton Park is empty and how many of the units behind Sainsbury’s have been occupied. And no just because I am not posting on Dawlish.com does not mean I have gone quiet and have given up opening councillor’s eyes to what the planning department and developers are doing with the local plan and yes all of these houses being built are going to affect me and everybody in Dawlish and the surrounding area. There is still the matter of SANGS to be sorted out and that without taking Farmer Weeks land.
The plan for DA2 was voted on by TDC councillors and approved, what the framework document gives us now is so different to what elected councillors approved and some of us are trying to get this put right and not by posting on Dawlish.com. I have said on this blog site at various times what I want to see is the plan that the council voted on not what the framework document says. I want a link road built first with all the services running off it, I do not want any more building traffic put on Elm Grove Road and I do not want any more houses built with access to Secmaton Lane. I also want better schools and doctors, including another surgery. Posting on Dawlish.com will not achieve this so we are embarking on other methods to get things changed to the benefit of the existing residents not the developers. We are not going to get this by posting on Dawlish.com all we do on here is wake up some of the Dawlish residents to what is going on in this area.
@Lynne as far as i am aware dtc cannot object to the langdon site per say as it is part of da2 what they may have a say on is the extension of the da2 area and they could also request it to be option b and not decided by a planning officer but by the planning committee also of course all of these applications must be delayed until after the council has approved the framework document.