Browser does not support script.
Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

23/1007/OUT | Demolition of existing buildings and structures and residential-led mixed use development providing new dwellings and workspace, retail, café/restaurant, community and cultural/leisure/education/hotel uses and associated infrastructure, including vehicular access, servicing, mobility hub, energy plant; alteration of ground levels; drainage and public open space; landscaping and public realm works; including pedestrian and cycle routes, with all matters reserved for future considerations, with the exception of access. | Water Lane (South), Exeter, EX2 8BZ
  • Total Consulted: 208
  • Comments Received: 27
  • Objections: 24
  • Supporting: 0

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 27|1|2|3|

Grahame Forshaw (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 19 Jan 2024

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the initiative to develop the areas within the proximity of the Exeter Ship Canal and the Water Lane area.
Whilst I fully appreciate the need of find more space for housing in the area, there has to be an awareness that Exeter City Council has a statutory responsibility to maintain navigation through the Exeter Ship Canal and as part of that responsibility there is a need to keep clear areas around the water for logistical and other reasons detailed below for the service to continue.
It should be noted also that the canal is a working stretch of water, vital to local trade and cannot simply be a backdrop to residential housing.

Gabriel's Wharf

Firstly, Exeter Port Authority objects to the potential loss of Gabriel's Wharf as a facility to lift vessels from the water. Gabriel's is of enormous value operationally because of the ground make up and space associated. There is no other ECC owned location along the canal where vessels over 20 tonnes can be lifted clear of the water.

Without having the capacity to lift the heaviest of vessels that visit the canal the Exeter Port Authority would have to limit the size of vessels that enter the canal to less than 20 tonnes which is unacceptable, particularly as the Port of Exeter has now been granted Heritage Harbour status and the Exeter Port Authority is looking to once again attract vessels of considerable size to the Basin and Quays.

The importance of Gabriel's was brought into sharp relief in October of 2022 when a large (65 tonnes) former fishing trawler sank whilst alongside at the wharf. The costs of the environmental clean-up and lift out/disposal of the vessel was over |£160K, had the capability of lift out at that location not been available and the vessel sank at any other mooring in the canal the costs would have been far higher. It was fortuitous that the vessel sank there and not elsewhere. It is a statutory obligation for the Council to maintain an effective oil-spill pollution plan and Gabriel's Wharf is in an important component in that plan.
Gabriel's Wharf is a working quay and is important as an emergency facility for the good of the Council and the wider community, without it the Council would not be able to offer the same level of service.

Secondly, the Exeter Port Authority objects to any withdrawal of dedicated road access (and storage/vehicle turning space) for the access of large articulated vehicles and cranes (up to 300 tonnes capability) to access the quay for the lifting of vessels to and from the water for all the reasons outlined above.

Canal bank maintenance

The development of the site may need the canal tow path to be blocked off whilst the construction of any development is done south of Gabriel's as far as the Solar farm. This will mean that any canal bank repair work needed to be done in an emergency will be extremely difficult to do. This might be overcome by developers putting in sheet piling along that stretch of the canal to shore up the canal bank on the West side thus negating the need for any repair work to be done.
Similarly, any closure of the canal tow path however temporary will have detrimental effect on the operational effectiveness of the canal operatives when canal convoys or passages by commercial vessels are done. The nature of the work involving a passage by craft up and down the canal requires the team of operatives to move quickly by vehicle to the next bridge or lock once a vessel has passed through the obstacle to be at the next crossing ready to swing the gates or bridge to allow the smooth passing of the boat before closing the same to move onto the next location. By having access along the tow path restricted and having the team to go by road around the different places will add considerable time to any passage, meaning that the Stuart Line cruises might not be able to go ahead whilst the construction on the site is being done because the ships' master needs to able to enter and leave the canal on the same tide; because of the length of the trip and the time it would take to get all the gates/bridges and locks open in time then the tide would be missed thus stranding up to 200 passengers in the wrong place so that operation is unfeasible.

Proposed new bridge across the Exeter Ship Canal

Exeter Port Authority object to any added bridge crossing of the canal. Any potential new bridge would add extra time to the already tight timetable of managing staff time and resources when vessels are transiting along the waterway. Any added bridge would slow the operation down; would need to be electrically operated and if not, have sufficient air-draught to the same height as the M5 motorway bridge (10.3m). Any extra bridge of lower height would also render useless any proposed slipway at Gabriel's because there would be nowhere for craft to go. To illustrate, any small craft entering the water at Gabriel's would not be able to go further down the canal if a near bridge were installed and could only go a short distance to the left of only 500 metres to the next bridge upstream at the King's Arms gates.
Furthermore, any extra bridge would mean that more pontoons would have to be installed either side of the bridge for transiting craft to tie up to whilst wating for the bridge to be opened. These extra pontoons might have to be up to 50 metres in length each side. The canal at this location is not wide and restricting the channel further would pose an unacceptable hazard to navigation.
It may well be possible to tunnel under the canal with drainage pumps etc. but a new bridge across would hinder canal operations and not needed.

Other considerations to other plan must include:

Risk of fire on board vessels

Unfortunately, there is a chance that vessels alongside any quay might catch fire. Any development anywhere along the canal must leave adequate space between the water and buildings so that a fire appliance can be not only driven through but have enough space for the firefighting crew to work in dealing with a fire, particularly in areas where boats may be moored close to a residential area.

Overshadowing of the water

Creating shadows across water can affect navigation, particularly if ships' masters cannot see ahead into darkness created by overshadowing buildings, this is evident in other areas of mixed residential and industrial waterways in other parts of the country.

Venturi effect of wind across the water in restricted areas

High rise building projects on both sides of a restricted waterway can have a detrimental effect on boat handling and navigation. A 'venturi' effect is created by any apparent wind accelerating between high buildings that straddle the waterway thus increasing that wind speed hindering boat operations.

In conclusion, the Exeter Ship Canal and surrounding infrastructure are an integral part of the Waterways service that the Council has ownership of and needs to be preserved for the good of the people of this city. As mentioned earlier, the success of the waterways depends on retaining space around the water to maintain the statutory obligation of keeping the canal navigable and safe for all to use.

Geraldine Graham (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Fri 12 Jan 2024

See documents

Ms Jane Green (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Dec 2023

Email received (15/12/2023 @ 12:04 hrs):

See Documents:

Representation - Objection - Jane Green

At the Harbour Board Meeting last night, the representation by the Board on planning applications was clarified. Formal comments would come from the Harbour Master and other representations would be by members individually rather than from the Board collectively. Therefore my comments which were an objection to the Outline Planning application above are from me as an individual and not as the board as a whole.

Kind regards,

Jane Green

Kate Hockins (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 16 Oct 2023

Significantly too high and too dense.
Unattractive design - not in keeping with historical area and our beautiful canal and river waterways.

Adverse impact of enormous development with 1000+ residents on tranquil canal area, this area is vital to maintain as an area of well-being for Exeter's residents and visitors. Exeter's legacy should be to protect these areas we are so privileged to currently have, not to destroy them.

Detrimental to existing wildlife.
Privacy and loss of light impact on existing small homes - why does the development have to be so close to these existing residents.

Developers, whilst seemingly worked with the local community have not considered the impact of such out of character unattractive buildings on this beautiful area, it's existing residents and the City of Exeter.
Current highways already congested. Any development in this area needs significant change to the road infrastructure. The current roads in the area, particularly towards the canal are in a state of disrepair, with potholes and patched up crumbling previous repairs failing, and have been for a long period of time. If there is not the funding to keep existing structures repaired how can this city afford to maintain new infrastructures?

Detrimental impact on already under resourced public services; NHS, Schools, Transport.

Parking - where will visitors to Exeter Canal Basin and Quayside park? Use of this area requires use of cars to carry water vehicles, bikes, children and pushchairs.

Building on a flood plain seems ludicrous in the current real climate change crisis we face. Who will bear the cost of evacuation/emergency services which we are advised will be inevitable in the future if we continue not to address climate change and build on flood plains.

Margaret Maxted (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Oct 2023

I am writing to object to the outline planning for this site in relation to mass and size; Loss to heritage sites.; Flood risk; Active travel arrangement and Biodiversity issues.

The development of buildings 12 storeys high would change how many people view the city from all Quarters.
It would be highly visible and may well be used as a mark of acceptance for the massing of buildings for future developments. Buildings of the proposed development would impinge on the historic ship canal by over shadowing on the towpaths.

Changing the use of Gabriel's Wharf negates the proposed projects and activities that have been agreed by Exeter City Council as set out by the Greenwood Projects report.


The surface water run off should not go into the canal. Flood risk to adjacent sites should be assessed.

Active Travel proposals

In general the proposals are ambitious without amendments and significant funding to realise the change in fabric of the routes suggested.

Both Tan Lane into Exton Road and the Gabriel's Wharf cycle path, under the railway line are poor and unsafe due to narrow access and blind corners. Pedestrians are particularly vulnerable to collisions with cyclists on the Wharf route, while in Tan Lane commercial vehicles occupy the the center of the road and pedestrians are barely able to access the higher level pavement due to invasive foliage.

The canal path by Gabriel's Wharf is not currently marked for cyclists but is used more than the potholed cycle route on the road. The canal path is currently hazardous for the pedestrian and cyclist mix and would require substantial widening.

The route to the Alphington Rd via Alphington St tempts cyclists to swap from pavement to road then use pelican crossings to avoid the narrowness of the Alphington rail bridge. Both loss of cycle lane and signage for pedestrians warning of the danger of the bridge putting cyclists and pedestrians into conflict with cars fail to make this encouraging active travel.

Access across to Quay Hill (marked cycle route) is far too narrow for the cycle and pedestrian use that now occurs.

All roads in the Water Lane and Haven Banks area should be 20 mph and cyclists encouraged to use road carriage ways and not pavements.

Should there be a newly proposed partner providing hiring E Bikes the company should be required to arrange that the hiring charge includes third party insurance in case of accident.


"Residential proposals should be seen in context of the city's ecological network and will be expected to play its part in enhancing diversity." Exeter City Councils Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document.

Keep the developer to this and don't negate this as the current proposals do not show rigorous survey processes.

Mr G J Oakes (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 05 Oct 2023

To whom it may concern,

Whilst we welcome the redevelopment of the Water Lane area, we must object to the current proposals as outlined in this application, which comes a great disappointment as our comments made during the public consultation have largely been ignored.

We're a family of four and have lived in the area for over twenty years and are concerned with the impact such a large number of dwellings will have on our neighbourhood, particularly as basic services such as access to a doctor or dentist are completely inadequate.

The proposed development will put further pressure on parking, which is already problematic, even with the residents parking scheme, it's unrealistic to assume that new residents will not own cars in our largely rural county and the alternative to ownership such as Co Cars has failed to be viable.

If 5% of the residents own a car, where will the additional 60 vehicles park? also there doesn't appear to be any accessible parking included and how will the DHL van deliver a parcel to the residential units on the former rendering plant site?

Increased vehicle ownership will also make the existing road network less safe, particularly for cyclists, as Willeys Avenue and Water Lane are primary cycle routes serving ISCA Academy, St Thomas, Marsh Barton and beyond.

We believe that our residential amenity will be negatively effected by a prolonged construction period, which will lead to an increase in noise, dirt and heavy vehicular movement on Haven Road, Willeys Avenue and Water Lane.

We also consider that 1200 residential units is over development of the site, particularly when you look at other residential development on the fringe of the city, of particular concern is having 250 student units in a quiet residential area.

The proposed storey height is excessive and contrary to the character of the city scape and surrounding area, it will effectively dominate the skyline and be visible from all over the city and will negatively impact views of historic buildings such as the Cathedral, St. Leonard's Church and Colleton Cresent, as evidenced in the visual impact assessment.

The proposed scale and massing will dominate the River Valley Park, diminishing its amenity and character, effectively boxing it in with a cliff edge of development and destroying the sense of open landscape that forms the green heart of our the city.

Part of what makes this area special and an attractive place to spend leisure time is its slightly tatty maritime character, including the boats, businesses and industry associated with them, and this scheme will effectively sweep that away, there's a danger that Exeter will become assimilated into the homogeneous wave of urbanisation sweeping the country.

Dr Kirby James (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 05 Oct 2023

It is welcome that development of is area is being considered - but two key aspects deserve particular attention:-

- Preservation and enhancement of the canal and riverside location, and
- Consideration of transport links in such a constrained area.


The Exeter Canal Basin, and the Canal and Riverside, are key historic, environmental, leisure and tourist attractions. It is vital that any development preserves and enhances these areas.

It is welcome that the plan shows that most of the proposed building are set back from the canal edge (page 89, figure 6.4). The exception is part of building 'B1' (which appears to be only 10m from the edge).

Building B1 is shown as being 7 stories high which conservatively means a height of around 35 m. This means that for someone standing on the canal bank the top of the building will be 74 degrees above the horizontal. Even for the other 7 story buildings alongside the canal (which are shown as being around 15 m from the canal) the equivalent figure is 67 degrees above the horizontal.

In both cases these buildings will present an overbearing feel to walkers or cyclists on the paths below.

The highest buildings in the Gabriels Wharf/River Meadows complex are only 4 stories high.

I feel that limits of 4 stories high, and a closest approach to the canal of 15 m would be more appropriate in this location. Indeed, on page 67 of the nascent 'Liveable Water Lane Supplementary Planning Document' indicates that a building height width ratio of 1:1 (ie. 45 degrees) should be imposed.

At present the footway alongside the Gabriels Wharf/River Meadows complex narrows significantly at the southern end such that it can be difficult for two pedestrians to pass each other. This has also meant that the cycleway past Exe View Cottages has been diverted along Cotfield Street. It would be beneficial if the scheme could include the option of widening this path to better accommodate pedestrians and ideally allow cyclists a continuous route too. (see A24, page 112, 'Liveable Water Lane Supplementary Planning Document')

Currently there are several points where the canal can be accessed by boats, canoes or SUPs. Large vessels can be launched alongside the Coastal Workboats unit, and canoes and SUP can be launched from at least two sets of steps down to the canal. All these points can be accessed by vehicle.

Figure 6.40 shows 'new access to canal' - which appears to be a pontoon alongside the cycle path. At the Coastal Workboat Wharf there appears to be no access.

At Page 49, it states '5.13 A new Quay is proposed south of River Meadows' it appears that this won't allow public access.

I believe that it is important that the public have ready access to the canal, and this includes vehicular access to deliver and recover boats.


The proposal is remarkably light on transport issues - especially those posed by vehicular access.

The 'Liveable Water Lane Supplementary Planning Document' which is about to be consulted on contains numerous recommendations relevant to this area.

I would like the overall guidance suggested in this document to be agreed, and only then to consider this application for approval.

Mrs Charlotte Nixson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 04 Oct 2023

The development is totally unsympathetic to the surrounding area and will have a terrible impact on the natural beauty of the rural waterside. The height and density of the development needs to be re-considered, as does the head in sand approach to the idea that residents will not create vast amounts of traffic and parking problems.

Miss Isabella Burke (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 04 Oct 2023

Whilst I also do welcome and understand the need to develop on brownfield land, I echo many of the concerns that have already been raised. I write my own views, as one of the directors of the River Meadows Management Company; which, alongside Gabriels Wharf and Cotfield Street are due to be entirely engulfed and surrounded by this proposed development with long-term disruption lasting up to 10 years.

On the basis of the redevelopment of this site a whole, I am neutral. But on balance, I have to object to the current proposal given the lack of detail around the type, size (floor space per apartment) and quality of the housing which is proposed. Particularly in ensuring that sufficient properties are provided which will be suitable for people to live in, long-term; including the provision of sufficient parking and access to gardens. Without this information I cannot support the application. Given the complexity of the site, the wide range of options which are possible and the scale and cost of redevelopment, I do not accept that this should be a reserved matter. I also object to current proposals to place retail and commercial properties directly adjacent to existing residential properties, when it would be more amenable to place new residential properties alongside old, in a similar architectural style to properties which are already on Water Lane, to preserve the peace and tranquillity in this beautiful and wild area of the quay. I am also unclear as to why all the industry, with the exception of the Vulcan Estate, will be removed from this area entirely? It will be a terrible shame to loose the boat building business and potentially commercially detrimental to the operation of the canal itself to loose the wharf.

CONFLICT BETWEEN COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL SPACES. Firstly, whilst I cannot deny that many of the dwellings in this part of Water Lane are tenanted, there are actually quite a large number of residents that have lived in this area for a long period of time. Many of the flats in River Meadows are still owned by people who purchased them when they were constructed in the 1990s or have only sold once since they were built! Therefore, it is unfair not to consider the direct impact that this development will have on existing residents (63 Flats at River Meadows, ~28 properties at Cotfield Street and ~45 Flats at Gabriels Wharf, approximately 136 properties) at the southern end of Water Lane. Notably what is currently a quiet, area, seems quite deliberately set to become a bustling waterside metropolis under these plans. These plans will certainly cause a substantial increase in foot traffic, vehicles, noise, and general disturbance in this area. Not only to us, but also to the wider quay. Ultimately whilst I can appreciate the style and setting of Whapping Wharf in Bristol; the Exeter Quayside needs to retain its own character; which at the southern end of Water Lane (in difference to the piazza) is currently quiet, peaceful, and wild.
This issue is exasperated in my assessment by the current proposal which includes significant retail/commercial activities directly opposite our residential properties. It seems more appropriate to ensure that proposed residential properties are placed next to existing residential properties. This does not appear to be the case currently, where a gym, swimming pool, retail spaces, a hotel? and the college building are situated almost directly opposite Cotfield Street, Gabriels Wharf and River Meadows. Some consideration in the planning design should be given to protecting the peacefulness of this area of the quay. It does not seem necessary to situate the college building on the site of the old warehouse as it seems highly likely that this structure will be demolished in its entirety. On balance, perhaps it is less disruptive to shift these businesses where heavy foot traffic is proposed, away from existing residential properties; perhaps closer to Tan Lane itself. In my assessment a further review of the plan, to preserve quiet residential areas and to prevent the whole area from being accessed by everyone, from every other part of the site, (particularly commercial sites proposed in close proximity to residences) is important to preserve peace. But I do welcome the proposed green spaces and transitions. I just think that residential zones need to be better protected from high foot-traffic, particularly around Cotfield Street, River Meadows and Gabriels Wharf which are already quite exposed. Perhaps by simply reducing access from all sides? I always thought that the area around the old rendering plant would be a good location for really nice, high value properties, possibly apartments, a little larger and more modern than ours, but 7 stories high is 3 stories higher than our blocks.

INSUFFICIENT PARKING PROVISION. At this time (as has been the case since I have lived here, 2016), the 136 properties above and the neighbouring businesses likely currently utilise the equivalent of about 70 parking spaces at the southern end of Water Lane on an average workday (I counted), in addition to some parking which is available to only residents at River Meadows and Gabriels Wharf. These spaces are currently not subject to residential permits, but this has been discussed previously as I understand. In my assessment it is not appropriate for access to these spaces to be forcibly and abruptly removed from this area. A large number of the residents in this area (owner/tenant) such as myself currently rely on vehicles in order to work in the area because it is not possible to access sites across Devon and Cornwall using public transport networks. It would be very difficult, time consuming and potentially expensive (where taxis are required) to get to any site which is not currently within walking distance of a train station in a major town or city. Whilst I appreciate that the council wishes to reduce the reliance on private vehicles in the city, this needs to be a more gradual shift, alongside the gradual provision of better public transport networks. Many people choose to live in Exeter because it is a gateway to the rest of the southwest. But unfortunately, these networks are still so poorly developed it is actually almost impossible to get to most rural areas/sites without a car! Including properties, villages, beaches, woodlands, parks and other amenities. Bristol and London are larger cities with far more developed public transport links, as well as significantly more amenity provision. It is true that there is more to do in these cities, so perhaps you don't feel the need to leave quite as often. Unless the plan is that residents of water lane will be permitted to access Exmouth and Dawlish Warren by bike or bus only (such is the 15-minute town strategy). I also want to mention the provision of spaces for works vehicles for tradespeople alike as this will become very challenging with the loss of on-street parking in this area (works vans do not fit in our garages for example).

Considering just parking for the residential properties which are proposed (as figures are provided for these) the application suggests that there are currently 42 parking spaces (how has that been calculated?); that the proposal is to effectively provide (being generous here) 276 spaces for something like 950 dwellings? That would be 0.29 spaces per property (or one car for every 3 to 4 properties). If you consider the net loss of ~70 parking spaces from the public road (as discussed in the consultation phase) and the maximum number of properties proposed (980), that would be just one car for every 5 properties. Considering provisions for existing properties, it could result in less than one parking space for 5 properties. Your figures for Whapping Wharf suggest the parking provision for that site was 0.4 spaces per property; which is double what I read as being currently proposed for Water Lane. I agree with other comments that perhaps a multi-storey car park should be considered here. This issue is only further exasperated by the collapse of Co-Car and the future challenges around providing electric charge points for electric vehicles.

SIZE OF PROPERTIES PROPOSED I think that in general, the planning application needs to provide more specificity on how many and what size of dwellings are proposed; make clear distinctions between properties that are designed for short-term leasing and dwellings that are designed for families or long-term living with sufficient parking provision and as others have recommended, gardens. From my own experience of living in a 52m2, 2 bedroomed flat, it can be oppressive for two adults to live together in a small space and can also place quite significant pressure on relationships, having only a balcony for example to find private space. Whilst some figures for the density and type of housing which have been constructed at Whapping Wharf have been provided, I have been unable to ascertain what type of housing exactly is being proposed at Water Lane? It seems to be mainly a mixture of apartments, no standalone homes per-say, a residential home and student accommodation. And concerns have already been raised about the proposed height of some of these buildings. Again, this planning application lacks this level of detail, but these are the details which we are most interested in, which have the most impact on changing the character of the area.

SURFACE WATER FLOODING RISK. With the exception of Cotfield Street which has properties with rooms on the ground floor, the 1990's built flat complexes Gabriels Wharf and River Meadows mostly do not have ground floor residences. Almost all of the ground floor space is taken up by garages. From my understanding speaking to residents who have knowledge of the construction of the site, there were significant challenges relating to dealing with groundwater issues at the time these properties were built, as the lowest parts of the foundations of the site lie close to the elevation of the canal. It would seem likely that any development in this area, particularly of buildings with the same or higher elevations will be subject to the same type of issues and costs.

I can confirm that only 3 weeks ago, more than 5 of our garages flooded due to the backing up of municipal surface water drains on Water Lane. It is equally not reasonably possible to insure the contents of our garage against flood damage due to the known surface water risk profile. Given that the majority of this area of Water Lane lies at a similar elevation, it would be an interesting decision to put retail stores and/or occupied properties at ground level and not use this level only for parking or garages to store sports equipment for example. Given the scale of this development and the increasing frequency of intense rain that can easily cause dramatic localised surface water flooding events, such as those we experienced just a few weeks ago; it seems that these issues really need to be seriously considered, risk-assessed and suitable measures put in place to reasonably prevent flooding issues from occurring. Particularly as the existing surface water drains on Water Lane (notably at the south end) are already are not consistently able to deal with the surcharge of water that arises from a short-duration intense rainfall event. The likes of which are almost certainly going to increase in frequency.

The same issue is potentially true of the additional loading of the foul sewer as the development is likely to place a considerable amount of additional pressure on a system that operates at or near groundwater level. I understand again that historically our site at River Meadows has had issues with overflowing sewage drains from the rendering plant. Whilst I understand some revision to the existing combined drainage system was made to reduce this issue, I would think that this still remains a considerable risk to any new development in the area.

WILDLIFE. The quay is home to an astounding range of wildlife. Whilst the brownfield sites themselves (rendering plant etc) are perhaps not particularly rich in nature at this time, our flat blocks house a population of house martins though the summer. It would seem beneficial to provide them with some potential nesting sites as part of the new development and ensure that any planting that takes place in the transition areas utilises species which can act as beneficial wildlife corridors/bridges to other areas of the quay.

Finally, this application is vast and complicated which likely reduces the number of people that are able to fully review and comment on the application itself. Equally, admittedly I have not been able to fully absorb every facet of this application in producing this response, but would be more then happy to discuss any of the points which I have raised further and perhaps offer suggestions for consideration if this would be useful.

Kind regards

Isabella Burke

Mr Harry Duncton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 04 Oct 2023

As a resident right on the edge of the proposed development, I am deeply concerned about the scale and time frame of this project.

I do not object to development on brown field sites, but I do not believe that anyone wants to live with up to 12 stories of accommodation overlooking their home. Anything that will be overlooking residents homes should be restricted in height.

This development as its proposed will have a huge impact on the life of the existing residents. The noise, dust and disruption of a building project of this size that could last for decades needs to be completely explained before a spade enters the ground.

Also the access to this area (Alphington Road) is already stretched to breaking point, so how can we expect to welcome thousands of new residents without a proper increase in infrastructure.

It is also concerning that a development of this scale seems to be going ahead when almost no body knows about it.

Showing 1-10 of 27|1|2|3|

an Idox solution