Browser does not support script.
Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

21/1564/OUT | Outline planning application with all matters considered in detail except landscaping, for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of mixed-use development comprising Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (Sui Generis) and Co-Living (Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure. (Further revised plans received Jan 2023) | Former Police Station And Magistrates Court Heavitree Road Exeter Devon EX1 2LR
  • Total Consulted: 579
  • Comments Received: 118
  • Objections: 117
  • Supporting: 0

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 118|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr Peter Child, Devon Buildings Group (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 27 Jan 2023

The Devon Buildings Group objected to the original application for the development of this central site and were pleased to see that it was quite rightly rejected by your committee. These revised proposals merely tinker with the previous design which remains fundamentally the same as the original. The Devon Buildings Group therefore maintains its objection that the development is grossly overlarge for the site both in volume and height and that its design quality is too poor for such an important and prominent site. The Group strongly recommends its final refusal.

Mrs Sheila Ward (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 24 Jan 2023

I reaffirm my objection to this proposed development, for all the reasons previously stated; as many others have already commented, the so-called 'revisions' to this scheme do not address the concerns which have been raised very many times. I echo the sentiments of other objectors concerning the scale of the development, lack of action to the opinions expressed and the apparent disregard by the developer of the effect on local amenities and residents of another over-populated monolith. The developer is, as another objector suggests, merely tinkering with plans in order to get the application back to another Planning Committee. Please restore our faith in the system by ensuring this scheme is not approved and concentrate instead on encouraging affordable homes - not tower blocks - for local residents.

Comment submitted date: Sun 13 Feb 2022

I emphasise all my previous comments, and those of others, objecting to this scheme. The revised plans confirm the development is still entirely out of all proportion with surrounding buildings in terms of size and estimated number of occupants. The documents describe the 'residential use' of the next door development without confirming the over bearing new building and similar high occupancy on the what was the old ambulance station. I walk to work past this building site, where fleets of concrete lorries wait with their loads, and shudder to think of a similar development at the old Police Station. An opportunity to develop two sites owned by Public organisations was sadly missed; please do not allow another privately funded monolith to dominate the Exeter skyline but instead think about the needs of Exeter residents and encourage a plan for mixed housing. Tinkering with the landscaping and access points is not revising the plans; reviewing the sheer number of single occupancy rooms already available in the city, looking at other housing needs, and challenging political expediency would be what I would ask our elected Planners to do.

Comment submitted date: Sun 14 Nov 2021

I echo all of the comments of those who are objecting to this application; in particular I have concerns about:
- Change of use to student accommodation, albeit with some co-living aimed at the same age group;
- Over development of the site and height of the proposed buildings
- Negative, detrimental environmental impact including lack of clarity regarding mature trees
- Another precedent for approving future overbearing high rise buildings within the city boundary
- Detrimental effect on the amenities and quality of life to nearby residents and those who work in the area

I urge the Planning Committee to ensure they are informed of the number of purpose built student accommodation blocks (actual and planned) across the city, together with their current occupancy and usage (pre-Covid-19). Given the University of Exeter's own plans to expand its student accommodation, is this private scheme really to be prioritised over other types of housing for Exeter Citizens? Is this really government policy? The Council should publish the figures alongside any applications for projects such as this; is the developer at all concerned about the quality of life for the residents of the build, or its neighbours?

There was a significant missed opportunity to develop this site alongside the old ambulance station. Let's hope the Planning Committee feel strongly enough to support an alternative scheme to provide some mixed affordable family housing.

Mr John Wooding (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 24 Jan 2023

Email 24 January 2023
Hello Mr Diamond . I am writing to make my objections known to Exeter City Council regarding the old police station site in Heavitree Road. The planned building is out of caricature with the college buildings across the road and the residendial housing in the area . The propossed buliding has no parking availble to the students that will live there which will place extra strain on the residents in Exeter who are finding parking difficult enough without an extra 1000 students , the Councils argument for allowing all these Student flats to be built is that this will free up residential areas but this is not hapening, more and more residential houses are being turned into HMOs because they undercut the rent cost ,which in turn places more strain on Exeters residential parking. Where are these extra 1000 Students going to see a doctor or a dentist where are they going get their prescriptions , where do they park their cars? Our services cannot handle the amount of people now living in and around Exeter !
Our roads in the Exeter area are in such a bad state of repair and you are encouraging people to use push bikes , the pot holes are dangerous enough for vehicles let alone motor and push bikes. I look forward to your response . John Wooding

Mrs lorraine hayes (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 23 Jan 2023

The Revised plans do not negate any of the previous objections, there is minimal change to the height and mass of the proposed buildings and size of the area of landscaping, again no feasible landscape plan submitted. The applicant should take heed that the build on the Gladstone Road Ambulance station site has ground to a halt, the contractors pulled out leaving a mess in the residents car park on a project too high and size in area that received many similar objections.
Please do not pass this so called "revised " application.

Comment submitted date: Mon 18 Jul 2022

The proposed plans for the former Heavitree Police Station and Courts should be rejected as the buildings are far too high and cover virtually the whole area right down to Heavitree Road bar narrow strip of supposed tree re-planting. I note all existing trees would be felled, bar one which is actually OUTSIDE the boundary of the site and in St Matthews Close!!
The photos on Devon Live website show an image taken from and including the grass area in front of St Luke's College building, giving the impression of a large landscape area in front of the proposed building, where there isn't going to be one.
There is an awful parking situation in St Matthews Close and Sandford Walk due to the current build on the old Ambulance site, the residents parking area at the west elevation is virtually unusable due to workmen parking in residents spaces and daily deliveries by huge artic lorries occupying the car park. At least parking on the pavement has been stopped where wheelchair access is required at all times.
My concern is where will the builders toilets and offices be sited and access for lorry deliveries be on the police station site ?
Will any of the work site encroach again on St Matthews Close and our Residents parking and access roads. I cannot see a plan of where the police station site offices and toilet containers will be placed, indeed at present we have two double height containers of building works offices and toilets on the ambulance site right against our Sandford Walk back lane wall with no indication that we would have to put up with them for the whole time of the build when those plans were submitted, only after the application was passed was an email of the site offices and toilets plan sent to me and they were then already in situ.
The proposed names for the buildings, Higher and Lower Workhouses do nothing to enhance them, although they likely reflect how small and crammed the apartments will be!! At least the original workhouse and then Higher and Lower Annex wards as part of RD@E Hospital, on Heavitree Road was renamed Atlas House.
Lorraine Hayes
Resident Sandford Walk

Dr David Jeremiah (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 18 Jan 2023

At the end of the extensive report of the Planning Committee discussion of the 5 September 2022, three points summarised the grounds for refusal of the proposed plans for student/co-living accommodation. These were
- Its adverse impact on the surrounding buildings and street scene
- The insufficiency of external amenity space
- The loss of trees and biodiversity.
The architects revised proposals have conscientiously ignored all of these points.
The site as it is has an approximately 30:70 balance of building to green space, the proposal is 80:20.
The current Exeter city plan now under discussion talks about a 'liveable Exeter' one that will protect 'precious green spaces' benefiting community, heritage and quality of life. It may be over-optimistic, but it would be good if planners and politicians could now apply this vision to the redevelopment of the Heavitree Road site.

Comment submitted date: Tue 05 Jul 2022

The consistent arguments against the height, scale and overwhelming mass of the proposed building, its impact on the neighbourhood and major road into the city centre are all ignored by this resubmission. Why?
The Heritage Report wrote about the minimal impact on the neighbourhood. This is simply not true. Consider the social and visual impact of the adjacent re-development of the ambulance site on the neighbouring domestic housing, now double it with a building that will be two and even three stories higher, and in the process obliterating all of the existing green space. I have said it before, it will be a monument to Exeter's political and planning ineptitude

Comment submitted date: Fri 12 Nov 2021

Further objection by email 10/02/22 - David Jeremiah

"Having been timed out twice in trying to submit my comments on the re-development of the police station site the following are the observations outlining my objections to the proposal.

I appreciate the difficulties in trying to find ways of balancing the housing needs of residents with those of the increasing numbers of students. Unfortunately the proposal as it stands brings more problems than it resolves.

The PBSA Benefits paper makes much of how the scheme to house 689 students and co-living will as a consequence so unsettle the housing market of the private landlords that dependent on the size of the properties it could potentially release some 345-229-172 dwellings on to the property market. Really?

To suggest that the private sector will be sufficiently spooked to give up on highly successful investments is a highly speculative and questionable assessment. But then perhaps the city authorities have the data to show that the ever expanding programme of student residential developments, notably the recent Barn, Cheeke Street and Central Living, Paris Street, has begun to rebalance the housing market. It would be interesting to know. At the same time it seems timely to consider the extent to which after a first year in residential hall there is a pattern of student preference for shared housing that will continue to counter such benefits.

The most alarming elements of the submission are to be found in the Design and Access statement with its visualising of the mass as it fronts Heavitree and Gladstone Road.

Just think for a moment of the domestic scale of building on all of the major access roads into the city centre. Two-storey properties are normal, some are three-storey, and very occasionally four. Nearby to the police site on Heavitree Road is the redeveloped Atlas House Student that behind the three-storey facade rises to four-storeys; on the facing College Road is a modified student residential block that is also four-storeys. Elsewhere on the St Luke's campus there are three-storey student blocks on Magdalen Road, undistinguished but domestic in scale and detailing. Yet in contrast to these patterns consideration is being given to six-storey buildings that are of a commercial industrial scale. Why?

If there is a need to achieve a better understanding of what the scale and mass of the proposal really means, then visit the site where there is a prefabricated five-storey box building. Then put another level on top and multiply until it fills the whole site and impacts on the perimeter at a height higher than the cluster of trees currently on site.It is insensitive to St Luke's and the neighbouring houses, it destroys the rhythm of Heavitree Road, blocks the vista along College and Spicer Road.

Much has been made of the site lying outside of the agreed conservation are, but such lines are arbitrary, and here is an opportunity to extend and enhance the spirit and qualities of a conservation are, to bridge St Leonards and Newtown.

Suggested as a gateway to the city it is a mediocre design that exemplifies the distinction between building and architecture. As submitted it will be a permanent reminder of commercial greed and municipal inertia."
David Jeremiah

Original Objection -
The opportunity to re-develop the former Police station site is a unique opportunity to enhance one of the major access roads into the City, complement the adjacent conservation area and listed building, and reflect the needs of domestic neighbourhood. As it stands, what is being proposed in its type, deign and scale does none of these things.

Much has been made of the site lying outside of a designated conservation area, which is hardly surprising for what was a mediocre 1950s build and its surrounding prefabricated add-ons. It is however a site that could be re-claimed for the city, sensitive to the scale of St Lukes and the domestic buildings that front Heavitree Road from Polsoe Road to Western Way.

What is being proposed is a building of monumental scale, ia monument to greed, and the ineptitude of City planners. A City that in its post-war rebuild destroyed its 18th century treasures, contemplated erasing the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, seems intent on contributing to its heritage a building that must surely be seen as a blot on the landscape, and in debt to Prince Charles, a 'carbuncle'.

Other writers have rightly drawn attention to the need for other types of apartments, for the likes of young professionals, and certainly not more student housing. One final thought, the proposed footprint of the building leaves insufficient green space

Mr Anthony Orchard (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jan 2023

These 'revisions' again demonstrate the cynicism of the applicants.
Reducing the height of the building by one metre by the expedient of reducing the ceiling height on each floor will diminish the experience of the occupants and does nothing to reduce the impact of this building on the local environment and the experience of people entering this city. The proposed building still contains 956 units and has a height and massing completely inappropriate to this location which has a delicacy of set back buildings and deep landscaping. Having dropped their 'Gateway to Exeter' claim the architects are now proposing that the building will 'enhance the character of the area by introducing contemporary architecture'. Just try imagining 'The Depot' building on this site and you will have a measure of both the environmental impact and what the 'enhancement' will mean. This is a young person's warehouse and no amount of Mental Health and Wellbeing statements (not backed up by any independent evidence from Wellbeing experts) will alter the depersonalised experience that the students will endure. I again refer to Atlas House as being an excellent example of the right scale for this location.

Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Jul 2022

Further to my earlier comments, nothing of substance has changed. This cynical development remains totally inappropriate for this location. The consultants remain totally unobjective, e.g. (exsiting proposal 44 P25), ' the proposed scheme sits naturally and comfortably in its setting and continues a naturally layering of townscape working positively with the natural gradient of the topography'. What rubbish - these six storey buildings at the top of a slope sit alongside the 2/3 storey (max) domestic scale buildings and the historic St. Lukes; all these buildings well set back from the road with deep landscaping to the frontage. The developers have taken no notice of the large number of objections; have not held a public consultation and their only noticeable changes are to add light wells to the semi-basement accommodation and to increase the minimum size of the Co-living rooms from 13 to 18s.m. The original application clearly did not provide sufficient natural light (nor does the current) and 13s.m showed a complete contempt for the well being of the occupants. There is a location for a relatively high student accommodation block and that is Clarendon House not here.

Comment submitted date: Fri 04 Feb 2022

The applicants have clearly taken no notice of the 117 objections and the modifications are so insignificant as to be laughable. I am sorry for the poor trees that have introduced onto the frontage set in what the applicants admit to be a hostile hard environment. I note that they have actually increased the number of rooms rather than reducing by at least three storeys the height and reducing the footprint as the objectors have requested with reference to the surrounding areas. My original objections remain in full

Comment submitted date: Sun 14 Nov 2021

Objection to Planning application: 21/1564/OUT
Old Police Station and Magistrates Court, Heavitree Road, EX1 2LR


As local residents, we wish to object strongly to this is application on the following grounds:


1. Planning process

There has been no Public Consultation, unlike - for example - the recent application for the adjacent site (19/1417/FUL). It is particularly important that there should be public consultation BEFORE even an outline application is submitted as so many people not only in the immediate vicinity but also from afar will be affected by a development of this scale.

The development not only destroys existing mature trees, but the application does not include a full landscape scheme. This is a legal requirement.

The applicants acknowledge that they were under contractual obligations, by virtue of the sales contract, to submit the application by September 2021. This meant shortcuts were taken. Particularly bearing in mind that the vendor is a Public Authority, pushing its purchaser to make shortcuts in the planning process cannot be acceptable.

In addition the visuals are presented in certain cases in a way that can only be described as misleading, for example that showing the lawn of St. Luke's that makes it look like front landscaping to the proposed development.


2. Nature of the development

This proposal is for 1029 bedspaces on a site of 1.25ha in buildings of 32,989sm. This is 830 bedspaces/ha.
The buildings are 7 and 8 storeys high.

This compares to the recently completed Depot development of a 7 storey building for 716 bedspaces and many such recent developments of PBSAs of around 150. The Depot may have been approved in the context of a previously run down area of the city center (although recent activity highlights how brutally inappropriate this development is, architecturally). We strongly resist this precedent being taken and applied en bloc.

To achieve this density the buildings occupy an abnormally high percentage of the site and extend right down to existing pavements on Heavitree and Gladstone Roads.

There are courtyards surrounded on all four sides by 7/8 storey blocks which will not get sunlight except for short periods and nor will the rooms around the courtyards at lower levels. The hard and soft landscaping inside the courtyards will inevitably deterioriate and lack of sunlight to rooms will be deleterious to the health of occupants. This element of this design compares badly with The Ambulance Station which has a generous courtyard with one side entirely open.


3. Location

The Cotswold Archaeology Report commissioned by the applicants contains 5.24: "The wide straight nature of Heavitree Road affords long views east to west providing clear visual connections towards the city centre to the west and the generally low level suburban townscape to the east". Even the Design Brief from the developers changed from its initial intent to create a gateway building (which was both an arrogant assumption that Exeter needed a 'gateway building' and that a 7/8 storey indifferent and brutal design could provide a 'triumphal entrance' to a historic city) to "creating a development that resonated with its semi-urban and suburban context, vernacular and prevailing materiality".

The Depot is within Western Way which defines the boundary of City Centre and suburbs and in an area of tall commercial buildings, both post war and contemporary. If the proposed Heavitree Road development were placed in that context, it might feel at home. Placing it a suburban location is totally contrary to Exeter's Local Plan - 5.41 which says that development should be of a height which is appropriate to the surrounding townscape and of a volume and shape which relates well to adjoining buildings.

The applicant's planning statement seeks to draw equivalence between the Cheeke Street developments (including The Depot), Renslade House, which is a conversion of an office building with the backdrop of the City hillside and their scheme. The locations are not equivalent at all.

This is a matter drawn to the attention of the developers by ECC's Heritage Officer who says that "the height and massing coupled with topography creates an inevitable negative effect".

The site is also in the middle (but not part of) several Conservation Areas with St. Leonard's just 10m away.

As Cotswold Archaeology say (6.4), "there is high potential for the proposed development to be visible with views to, within and from a number of designated (heritage) assets and non-designated heritage assets with the potential to cause some amount of harm to their heritage significance or appreciation of it from its setting"

Within 0.5km there are 83 Listed Buildings within 6 Conservation Areas immediately adjacent.

Heavitree Road from the junction with Polsloe Road down to Clifton Road has a remarkable and unusual characteristic of having all the buildings well set back (especially on the `northern side) with mature trees and landscaping and even a small park in front of Waitrose. The old Police Station respected this tradition and is well set back with landscaping. Even the new Ambulance Station site was set back further than initially proposed to give a substantial landscape strip to Gladstone Road.

Why should this development be allowed to destroy the continuity of this delightful approach to the City Centre ?


4. Demand

In the 2012 Local Plan, the then student population of 12,929 was projected to increase by 3,300 by 2025/26 with 75% (2,500) to be accommodated in PBSAs. In the subsequent 9 years, this provision has been exceeded even by developments on the Streatham campus let alone the commercial developments in the central City. The student population has indeed increased to around 22,000 leading to developers wishing to build additional highly profitable PBSAs and, as has happened with the Harlequins and the Depot, seeking to redesignate multiple use schemes as student housing or 'Co-living'. Perhaps the University which we all want to support should be providing for the demand created by their expansion well beyond the 2012 and 2018 projection (Professor Smith Planning Report 2018) or allowing commercial developers to build on the main Campus.

This scheme provides for 689 PBSA's and 340 Co-living. Analysis of the gross space allocated to each of these uses shows almost identical space allocation to each of 33s.m. In terms of design and space there is no difference between the two designations purporting to cater for different markets. The intention of this designation is not only to facilitate planning but to capture demand from post-grads and young professionals but offering them tiny spaces at rents identical to the high rents of the PBSAs.

Should the design of the living accommodation be similar to that of other PBSAs in central Exeter and the space allocations here appear to indicate that, the rooms will be extremely small and will contain showers, desk and in some cases individual kitchenettes. Living in such spaces is unlikely to be good for the health of the occupants and the physical environments can deteriorate very fast even if occupied by the fastidious. The rooms go down to 13.5 sqm and the studios 16.3 sqm. Students are responsible for cleaning their own rooms and shared facilities.

But assuming that there is demand for these facilities, there is also demand from local people for purpose built, low energy, affordable accommodation in central locations. Other historic cities, including York and Norwich, have shown that well designed schemes can offer high density use of land with well landscaped environments. This site would be highly suitable for such developments particularly with its location adjacent to Conservation Areas, the St. Luke's campus and the high density housing from the C19 adjacent.

No demand analysis showing the developments created since 2012 and those in the pipeline has been provided.

The student exemption prevent the Council even receiving Council Tax.

5. Summary

The application is incomplete; poorly presented (especially in comparison to that for the Ambulance Station) and there has been no public consultation. The timing appears to be driven by the contractual demands of the vendors.

It has no respect for the nature of the location and the streetscape which is not City Centre but an attractive suburban main approach to the Centre with buildings well set back and extensive landscaping.

It is vastly out of scale and should be no higher than the well designed and proportionate student housing at Atlas House.

There is also demand for non-student housing and this would be a highly appropriate site for a development serving local people. As was New Town, next to the proposed site, when it was first developed.

We ask that this application be rejected or at least deferred until there has been public consultation.

Tony Orchard




Mr Dominic Leaver (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Jan 2023

I wish to object again to the latest revision of the proposal.
None of my previous objections have been addressed.
This is a game - the developer keeps submitting with hardly any change! Why has this not been refused after the last Planning committee given the 'against' vote? A completely new design should be prepared by someone else properly addressing all the valid objections because the objections are not being understood or ignored by this developer!
I have reviewed all the revised information and struggle to spot-the-difference!
The proposal is just as dense and has too many rooms.
The proposal is still too high at 6 or 7 storeys.
The distance between the buildings and the pavement is not sufficient for the proposed height.
The small courtyards are dreadful when 7 storeys and +20m high.
The design is ugly and repetitive, there is no character.
Parking in the area cannot support such a large scale development as the occupants WILL have cars.

Comment submitted date: Thu 14 Jul 2022

21/1564/OUT

I wish to reconfirm my previous OBJECTION for the same reasons.
Dominic Leaver
Leaver Consultancy Limited

Comment submitted date: Fri 10 Dec 2021

I object to the application.

1. It is out of scale in terms of height. All neighbouring residential properties are 2 storey or 2 storey with attic/ loft. Waitrose is single storey but is not higher than the existing houses. (I hope that this application isn't withdrawn and resubmitted one storey lower to seemingly appease the objectors as is the usual strategy of developers.)
2. It is not set back from the road with soft landscaping. Waitrose and St Lukes have green spaces with an abundance of trees.
3. There is no architectural relationship to St Lukes. A missed opportunity to align the axis of the main entrance of St Lukes with the centre or entrance to the proposed development.
4. Parking is insufficient for 1,000+ occupants.
5. Traffic infrastructure is not suitable for increase in traffic - the crossing over Gladstone Road at the Heavitree Road junction and the crossing over College Road at the junction with Heavitree Road is already dangerous for pedestrians.
6. If co-living, does not prohibit students living in the proposed development, so it's just student accommodation by another name and therefore is a misrepresentation of the application submitted.
7. The Heavitree Road elevation is so close to the pavement it will compromise the privacy of the properties on the other side of the road, no. 68 to 78 Heavitree Road.

----
Additional Leaver: I reconfirm my objection.

The revised plans do nothing to rectify any of the objections that I have previously made so I refer you to my original objection to the original plans, which has not changed.

It remains far too overdeveloped because it is 7 storeys and extends to the boundaries of the site. The proposals do not have any relationship with the density of the surrounding dwellings.

Also, I query the attractiveness of living in a development with a straight line corridor 50m long with 18 bed-sit doors to very small rooms.

Amendments to the tree planting proposals do nothing to address the lack of green space around and within the proposal that is completely lacking compared to St Lukes, Waitrose and Atlas House sites.

Dominic Leaver

-----
Add Objection:

Thank you for your letter advising revised information.

I reconfirm my objection.

The revised plans do nothing to rectify any of the objections that I have previously made so I refer you to my original objection to the original plans, which has not changed.

It remains far too overdeveloped because it is 7 storeys and extends to the boundaries of the site. The proposals do not have any relationship with the density of the surrounding dwellings.

Also, I query the attractiveness of living in a development with a straight line corridor 50m long with 18 bed-sit doors to very small rooms.

Amendments to the tree planting proposals do nothing to address the lack of green space around and within the proposal that is completely lacking compared to St Lukes, Waitrose and Atlas House sites.

Dominic Leaver

Mr Lew Poll (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Jan 2023

Everyone objects! No more student accommodation.
This must be social housing ONLY!

Everyone will continue to object ,there is zero support for these proposals.

Comment submitted date: Thu 30 Jun 2022

Fully object. This site needs to be social housing. Exeter has a shortage of social housing ,not private rented or private owned but social.

Plans to student housing on this site will always be rejected.

Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Feb 2022

This is clearly a strong objection from alot of people. There is absolutely no way anyone can justify more student accommodation when there is a shortage of affordable or social housing. Students are already very very generously accommodated in Exeter ,and the neighbourhood in question doesn't want the dreadful noise that come with students.

This is a very clear and obvious objection,the only acceptable amendments you can make is a refusal of student accommodation and for it to be social/affordable housing ONLY.

Comment submitted date: Mon 01 Nov 2021

Absolutely disgusting. The size and appearance are shocking. The noise generated by the students will be a nightmare for residents.

Every inch of Exeter is being turned into student accommodation,even when there is a serious housing shortage,and especially affordable housing.

My neighbour has literally been destroyed by student accommodation developments,by the sheer noise and also setting off a bomb that ruined peoples life's and homes,all that and it'll be a huge block full of noise.
You don't give any benefit to local residents,you just cause an utter nightmare instead.
This is a strong strong objection!!!

The only suitable and acceptable use for the land is affordable residential housing!!!!

So far not a single civilian is in favour,that says everything you need to know. To push forward and ignore everyone will not be a smart idea. You work for the people not for the rich elites or private companies.

Affordable residential accommodation only!!!

Mrs Anna Ingram (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Jan 2023

The alterations do not address the objections to this oversized and ugly development. It is still too close to the road and involves the removal of many trees, any replacements for which would take many decades to grow to the size and beauty of those in situ, even if the the experts say they are nothing special! Exeter was highly delighted to be recently judged the greenest city - surely we should be preserving trees in that case! The city is crying out for affordable housing for the hardworking, council tax paying people who live here (or would like to) all year round. The council should be looking for developers who would like to provide pleasant, fairly priced accommodation for them, not for yet more students.

Comment submitted date: Fri 08 Jul 2022

Once again developers plan to raise the skyline of Exeter and spoil the look of our city. The height proposed is entirely out of keeping with the surrounding area. I also object to the removal of mature trees to make way for the development - planting saplings elsewhere to replace them is unacceptable in an age when we should be maintaining the trees that we have in the interest of both citizens' wellbeing and wildlife.

Mr geoff tipping (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Jan 2023

Can someone please explain why the extant application has not yet been refused? Or am i missing something as the planning committee voted with one exception and one abstention to refuse the application yet i cannot find any evidence of the refusal on line.

Turning to the amendments , they are minor tweaks and as such if this revised set of drawings somehow managed to get consent it would be a travesty of public consultation .

My principle objection centered around the total loss of all the trees and existing habitat and the impact on Higher Summerlands, nothing has changed the impact is the same and for a Council that prides its self on "green carbon neutral status" it shows that the well intended policies are just that, "words".

This must be the least "green" "eco" " carbon neutral" "neighbour friendly" "mindful" "unsustainable" proposal i have ever seen.

It is obvious that the officers supported the original proposal , and continue to support these altered plans, as far as i can see because someone thinks that as a gateway site it justifies 100% site cover and requires some architectural statement. This is highly subjective and not policy. I also pointed out at the previous committee meeting that there are conflicting policies relating to the City centre , policies that accept and encourage high density and height but these policies conflict with many other policies aimed at preserving and protecting neighbourhoods.

The concept of a "gateway development" is really a cliche as any substantial plot on any arterial road could be viewed as such. The proposal presented to the Committee, Exeter City , the neighbourhood and residents of Exeter is not what i would consider to be an architectural master piece that would justify true "gateway, award wining , talked about, design". It is a monolithic lump that would be more comfortable sitting at the back end of a business park, or maybe on a wide open leafy campus ,(at the University for example).

What this site is, is a unique opportunity to develop a substantial central redundant site, where the previous use was "PUBLIC REALM" and in part undeveloped green field open space. As such there should have been much more public consultation from the get go, and a development brief should have been prepared to inform the future development . The very fact that the land has a wide "open" frontage to a main road only makes the challenge more difficult and interesting

Yes the location is perfect for student accommodation, but the same could be said for , affordable housing, or any other mixed use housing. The fact that the officers and Council members have not embraced the opportunity for what it is and showed some true vision and leadership has resulted in the land sitting derelict providing nothing for anyone, a more creative and inclusive proposal would have found favor years ago and would now be built out. Please do not let this generation defining development opportunity go to waste.

I implore the members to refuse the application for the same reasons as before, and this time find a way of invoking a moratorium on the open "green space" to protect and ultimately enhance this local public asset

Comment submitted date: Sun 17 Jul 2022

Saved Policy H5 states that: "The conversion of dwellings to flats, self-contained bedsitters or houses in multiple occupation and the development of special needs or student housing will be permitted provided that: - the scale and intensity of use will not harm the character of the building and locality and will not cause an unacceptable reduction in the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or result in on-street parking problems; - the proposal will not create an over concentration of the use in any one area of the city which would change the character of the neighbourhood or create an imbalance in the local community; - special needs housing is located close to local shops and services, community facilities and bus routes; - student accommodation is located so as to limit the need to travel to the campus by car."
NEW OBJECTION

Since the original application was made it is now possible to consider the application along side the adjoining development of student housing particularly with regards to the overall height and massing of the proposed scheme .

Fire station site : This is 5 storey ,actually 4.5 as the top floor is within the pitched roof.

Proposed development : 8 storey,

You can now view for the first time the fire station scheme on the skyline from Summerland Street and i feel it is essential for all committee members to go and take in this view and visualize the proposed scheme topping out at nearly TWICE the height. The fire station scheme tops at at almost exactly the height on this sky line as the same height as St Matthews Church, ( we live next door) .

How can this possibly be justified when considering policy H5 or indeed by any rational individual.

The height alone is not however the most offensive aspect of this development, it is the encroachment on the houses in Higher Summerlands, even the revised planting scheme has cloured in green the narrow path along the front of these houses as if it is being considered as part of the overall scheme WHY. To lose ALL of the planting along this cordon sanitaire , open space, habitat at a time when Exeter pretends to be concerned about the environment, global warming, carbon foot prints etc is a public disgrace of the highest order and for this reason alone the application should be refused.

IF THE DEVELOPMENT GOES AHEAD IT WILL BE THE FIRST CAMPUS 8 STOREY STUDENT BLOCK WITHOUT A CAMPUS !


Showing 1-10 of 118|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution