Browser does not support script.
Skip to main content

Planning » Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

20/0807/OUT | Outline permission for two detached houses within the garden (All matters reserved for future consideration). | 109 Cowick Lane Exeter Devon EX2 9HF
  • Total Consulted: 36
  • Comments Received: 32
  • Objections: 29
  • Supporting: 3

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 32|1|2|3|4|

Ms Tracey Coombs (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Nov 2020

- loss of habitat for wildlife
- loss of mature trees supporting wildlife
- vehicular access to two houses via Cowick Lane right next to a busy junction, Broadway and Larch Road

Mr Peter Goodwin (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Nov 2020

Although the sites have been widened and the parking 'hidden' beside the houses, I still think that only one plot with one dwelling should be considered for the following reasons:
The existing gate and dropped curb is very close to the junction with Cowick Lane which carries reasonably fast flowing traffic. If a vehicle is reversing into or out of this entrance a driver turning into Larch Road from the North will need to slow and stop, possibly with part of their vehicle still on Cowick Lane until the manoeuvre is complete and the vehicles can pass each other. The on street parking on the opposite side of Larch Road will exacerbate this danger.

The two houses still appear to have very narrow access to their gardens and no access for exterior maintenance between them.

And can the planning authority ensure that two completely separate self-build houses 'mimic the form' of semi-detached houses and 'appear to be attached' (as the supporting letter states)?

I applaud the family's desire to have the existing house refurbished and to preserve the character and setting. This preservation would be made easier by selling off a narrower plot with permission for one dwelling on it - much like the other end of Larch Road (29 and 31).

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Aug 2020

Why two narrow plots and two narrow houses? The rest of Larch Road has wide buildings which are front facing with their roof lines parallel to the road giving a friendly and neighbourly outlook. The plan also shows off-road parking for four cars but these cars will undoubtedly be driven in forwards and then have to reverse out endangering pedestrians and vehicles that are turning into Larch Road from Cowick Lane. Combining the plots into one and building one house would be more acceptable. It would solve the access issuesas as a turning space could be created, it wold give wider access to the garden and would be much more in keeping with the rest of the road.

Mrs Jo Creed-Smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Nov 2020

The amended plans are still for two houses....

Typically households have more than one vehicle, the plot size for these houses will not accommodate more than one vehicle. Larch Road, is extremely busy already, and is already difficult to enter the road if coming along Cowick Lane due to vehicles being parked on the left hand side.

If these two houses are built it would make the top of Larch road unsafe.

The plot is suitable for one dwelling only.

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Aug 2020

Larch Road currently has large wide houses. Two VERY small dwellings will not be in keeping with the area.

There will not be enough road parking space for two houses.

The outline plot within the garden is a great size for one family home, with off road parking.

Mr M Howell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 13 Aug 2020

Loss of trees.
Loss of nature conservation
Layout and density of building: Two dwellings in too confined an area.
Design, appearance and materials

Mrs Caroline Fisher (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 11 Aug 2020

I have lived in Larch Rd now for over 15 years and I am concerned about the blind corner when driving in and out of Larch Road, and the impact of adding two more properties very near will have.
I object to TWO houses being crammed into the space available especially if out of keeping with the surrounding properties.
I object to any mature trees being removed. The wildlife in this space is abundant and any environmental impact must be taken seriously. It is, I feel, a unique piece of open space and will be helping to lower air pollution in the area.
I object too, if there is any chance the existing house could be pulled down.
I see no real positives. It is sadly just profit-led.

Ms Krystyna Jalowiecka (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Aug 2020

This would affect the biodiversity of the land. Also access into larch road which would invite even more traffic into an already over parked road Is it really necessary to have two new builds when we live in a wonderfully ageing part of st Thomas. I object very strongly especially having lived in larch road for over 20 years We seem to get the overspill from Wembley Road and Cordery Road and now Cowick Lane

Mr Ian Judd (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Mon 03 Aug 2020

My wife and I are in favour of the development provided it is in keeping with the character of other houses in the street. The letter from Davy Associates ( 30 June 2020 ) indicates development subject to Planning policy design guidance, which seems appropriate. However, we have the following concerns :
1. Vehicle parking in Larch Road adjacent Cowick Lane is high demand in peak hours, both from commuters who then catch the bus in Cowick Lane, and local residents (of Cowick Lane) using Larch Road as "off-street" parking. Larch Road also carries traffic to Cowick Barton Fields so can be busy at times. Turning left from Cowick Lane into Larch Road is hazardous ; it is a "blind corner" made dangerous by a combination of parked vehicles and oncoming traffic, precisely at the proposed point of access into the development.
2. The aforementioned street parking and the width of Larch Road creates unsafe access conditions into the driveway for the proposed development and adjacent (existing) homes. In view of this, the concept of "off-street" parking noted in the development plan seems unrealistic, potentially adding to the burden of vehicle street parking and risk of a traffic accident.
3. A solid double brick boundary wall runs the length of the property at the rear. This is understood to be a party wall, whereas the development plan indicates a 1.8 m high timber fence. Can the development plan be amended to reflect what is in place today ?

Mr Matthew Smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 02 Aug 2020

I live very close to this site, I strongly object to this proposal for a few reasons, one of which being the brutal circumstances around the murder of two well known local pensioners, this shook the neighbourhood and what appears to be profiteering from it is a shock and insult.
The fact that the landmark trees will need to be removed would be a great loss on what is a very busy road, this would impact on air quality mainly but also the outlook of the area.
The green walled area of this site is not to be underestimated and is appreciated by much local wildlife and all who pass by.
Protection of the trees, A park area for quiet reflection and a green habitat would be far more befitting and a better tribute the twins who in their younger days were very keen on agriculture and had no interest in developing the site for more housing and profit.

Mrs Mary Tyrrell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 01 Aug 2020

Very quiet,not overlooked

Mr Kevin Cauchois (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Sat 01 Aug 2020

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.

My Wife and I fully support the use of ground within a residential area for further residential development. This has to be preferable to building in the countryside on virgin ground!

The current house has far too large a garden for what is usually required today. It makes complete sense to split the two plots into three plots to provide much needed additional housing.

There is plenty of green open areas within Exeter, particular around this area, and the creation of two new houses will still allow for large (manageable) gardens that will still be visited by wildlife and provide space for trees etc. which could be a condition of planning.

As long as the proposed development sites meet all government criteria we cannot see any reason why planning should not be allowed.

Showing 1-10 of 32|1|2|3|4|

an idox solution (opens in a new window)