Dear Mr Hobbs,  sending 1.52 pm 13-04-2026

Thank you for copying this to me. I am not well but having with my wife Sue loved this parish and area since 1975 when we moved to Combe so I could be near Torbay Hospital - especially for emergencies, my observations and wish for better should carry some weight. And we both enjoyably contributed a good deal within the parish. This continues with our donation of 30 acres of woodland to the Halpin Family Foundation CIO so the peace and beauty can be shared. A short welcome letter gives the picture - attached.  This e-mail with yours below will be posted on my general website under this title 'Amelia's Barn and Other Unwelcome Developments in Combe-in-Teignhead'. If there is error of fact, corrections may be added to the posting.

I have written in detail before - attached second in a following e-mail. My objections - shared with others have not been met properly by TDC.

I do not have time nor energy to go back into the full planning file re the former so any fault of memory as to fact must be understood. I will deal with the flower barn first and then list the others. This is a summary for the posting.
 
The TDC planning committee is required to review due process and the lawfulness of the erection of Amelia's Flower Barn against the outline planning conditions as tabled at a February meeting of the Haccombe with Combe PC. Year ?2023.

 Amelia's Flower Barn

This happened very suddenly, without a site notice and to the considerable anger of residents. In my earlier reading of all the details in the file I noted -

1. Harassment by the applicant couple of the Artur the officer as if there was extreme urgency for a positive decision
2. Gross deceit - the first application was for a barn for the storage of hay in the second storey. But there was no hay field and no stock numbers to justify this.
3. Excavation to 1.2 meters of the whole footprint was a central condition. This was required so that the barn was not seen much from across the estuary. It is clearly visible both from the public footpath to Coombe Cellars and from across the estuary. This would have required at least 15 lorry loads to be removed. Did this depth of excavation happen? It does not look like it.
4. Given the officer's apparent concern re visibility how did it fit that a separate website advertising yoga classes at the barn spoke of 'stunning views across the estuary'?
5. The conditions written by Artur and tabled at a PC meeting required that there be only monthly flower arranging demos. I believe the lady applicant, then a PC member, did not recuse herself at the point of discussion but in propriety, should have done so. People are easily inhibited.
6. The 'stunning views' became available when a veranda of steel construction was added on the east side of a very large barn. Waterproof seating was there. Was permission required and given for this addition?
7. There was obvious concern felt by Artur that onsite 'commercial' functions should not spring out of permission, traffic volume in the small lanes being one concern. But the yoga class - web site and activity were outside the original conditions. Add the illustrated sign in the Coombe Cellar's car park.

Other Unwelcome Developments in Combe-in-Teignhead

a. 'Boat house' on the shore by Hearne Field, Tidelands, with its steeply pitched roof. The PC objected to this, I was on it at time, assuming likely conversion to a dwelling. TDC gave permission. I had noted that the TDC took no notice of PC views re 'planning' even though there were appropriate site visits eg at Honeysuckle Farm when I was chairman.
b. Hearsay - an animal house behind the Village Hall. How many animals?
c. Hearsay - a former pigsty converted for 'holiday accommodation'. Now a permanent dwelling.
d. Boat park at Coombe Cellars - large with ugly spiked fencing, for Teignmouth Sailing Club. Very many boats in the park but how few sails when there are a few hours of higher tide?
e. The vandalism on Cow Field by Mr Authers. This hill is one of the most prominent in the 'beautiful brecchia landscapes' - quoting a planning officer. The 'residence' with windows is prominent and visible from across the estuary along with the machinery. TDC has failed in this. Fact - Mr Authers lied by including in the application by a Mrs Musson c. 2.5 hectares of land belonging to Mr David French. (There is a good letter on file from him confirming his ownership and TDC has it.) In law, this makes the effective developer - Authers - a 'bad actor'. So from early on TDC should have refused any further negotiation with him and had the land cleared. As you know - he ploughed some acres but this was a permanent pasture. Had DEFRA given permission? 

In summary - TDC has not been an effective custodian of the landscapes and 'amenity' in this parish, whilst individuals have added  considerable value to their properties.

for truth

David Halpin MB BS FRCS  Haytor  Website https://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/   

eg More vandalism  https://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/search?searchword=drove%20track&searchphrase=all   Gross vandalism - in this lead by the HcC PC

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to your complaint regarding the above site.

Firstly, I apologise for the delay in contacting you. I can confirm that I recently had a site meeting with the owners to discuss the concerns that have been raised by local residents. As part of the meeting the owners were reminded that the permitted use of the land relates to an agricultural / horticultural use and any activities occurring on the land must be associated with the permitted use. This needs to include events or workshops that are carried out on the land or inside the building.

From information received it is noted that on occasions some of the activities being run do not relate to an agricultural / horticultural use and as such result in a change of use for which planning permission is required. Examples of this are the yoga classes and candle making. As for other activities, where they relate to using flowers from the site the related events / workshops can occur and do not constitute a change of use.

With regards to the cafe the owners have been advised to cease advertising this as a reason for visiting the site. However, as the area given over is quite small the facilities associated with the provision of providing refreshments can continue where they are ancillary to the permitted use. The issue is that the cafe should not be a primary reason for visiting the site.

As for the children’s play area that has been provided at the lower end of the site the owners have confirmed that this will be removed soon. However, having seen the facilities provided which are fairly minimal it would not be a matter that would warrant formal action being taken against as it could be used whilst people are picking flowers. 

Finally, reference has been made about using an adjacent field to provide parking. On this matter it is noted that the land used is not part of Amelias Flowers, but the landowner does allow them to use it.  Although it seems that using the land for parking may result in a change of use it should be noted that under the planning legislation you can temporarily change the use of the land for any other purpose for up to 28 days in a calendar year. This can include providing parking or holding activities that are not related to agriculture.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Regards

Steven Hobbs

Senior Planning Enforcement Officer