Author: danwyn

Recently installed CCTV comes to QCG

The need for a camera in this position has long been considered very important by Exeter’s Community Safety Partnership and Dennis Cavanagh, ECC’s CCTV Control Centre Manager, is impressed by the far better coverage made available by this camera, not only of the Garden, but of Queen’s Crescent, Longbrook Street, and York Road, including the Mosque and St Sidwell’s Primary School.

Two stills taken from the CCTV covering Queen’s Crescent Garden

Dennis says, “As a key transit route for university students and Exeter residents in the North of the City this addition further demonstrates the Council’s commitment to the Safer Women at Night initiative.”

Inspector Simon Arliss, with whom the Directors have been working since 2018, specifically identified QCG as a key site for a camera in the original Safer Central Exeter funding bid and hopes are high that as well as providing evidence for dealing with any serious incidents, it will act as a very useful deterrent to the low level ASB including fly tipping and vandalism that has been occurring from time to time.

• Council approves revised Article 4 Direction Area – final chance to comment (see Trust commentary here)
• Exeter Plan Consultation – two final consultation dates remain (full details and how to respond here)

We know that many residents across St James appreciate the architectural heritage of the area and are keen to see the conservation areas enhanced. If this is you, this second application will certainly be one to which you will want to add your voice to a call for refusal.

Application 23/1424/FUL, seeks to replace a private garage on Oxford Road at the rear of 5-6 Well Street, with a two-storey, two-bedroom dwelling for three persons. It is one of a number of similar one-storey buildings, mainly private garages, at the York Road end of Oxford Road, directly facing the important Grade II listed Georgian terrace of 4-18 Oxford Road, but which are identified in the St Sidwell’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan as ‘buildings that do not make a positive contribution to the character of the area’. 

Replacement of the garage would therefore be welcomed if this enhanced the townscape, but sadly the proposed design is such that it would, to the contrary, have a detrimental impact on Oxford Road and the St Sidwell’s Conservation Area.

By failing to enhance the conservation area the design does not meet the criteria of NP design policy D1 or the Local Plan Design Policy D4 for many reasons, including sub-standard provision of internal and external space for the proposed occupants, as well as negatively impacting the privacy, daylight and outdoor amenity space currently ascribed to existing flats above 5-6 Well Street, creating an overbearing, hemmed-in outlook for the existing residents.

The NP states:

The best way to ensure heritage is protected is through good design as required by Policy D1, in particular with regard to build scale, form, massing, setback and materials.

In this case the design fails in all these matters, so is also non-compliant with NP Heritage Policy H1, which states:

Heritage Development affecting heritage assets within St James must pay special regard to the need to conserve and enhance their settings and any special architectural or historic features of significance.   

Comments to this application may be made online or by email to the case officer, Matt Hall, [email protected] As above, if you wish your comment to be counted as an objection, please mark it as such to avoid any doubt, and again copy to the planning department and councillors.

This follows a recent Appeal Decision Notice whereby H M Inspectorate upheld the City Council’s refusal decision of a 10 bed PBSA on the same footprint. The new proposal counts as a small PBSA in NP terms, and so Policy C3 which does not permit such development where it would ‘prejudice the objective of creating a balanced community’ is very relevant.

Policy EN4 which was cited by the Inspector when dismissing the applicant’s appeal over the refusal of his 10 bed PBSA application, is also relevant. EN4 is designed to protect residential gardens from development and states: Development which results in the loss of or significant harm to the ecological or landscape value of private residential gardens will not normally be permitted

Although the whole of St James suffers when development in any part of our patch worsens the existing community imbalance, those living in the immediate vicinity are always most impacted. Please show support for those who in this case have been enduring the anxiety during the months finally leading to the refusal decision of the original application, followed by further months awaiting the outcome of the Appeal, only now to face this new application. The NP is designed to help protect us all; we all need to continue to show our determination that the policies of the NP will be given due weight wherever the specific application site.

Comments may be made online or by email to the Case Officer, Leigh Powell, [email protected]. Make sure you state OBJECTION if you are opposed to the proposal to make sure it is added to the intended tally! (It always helps to cc [email protected] as well as our councillors, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected])

The Trust has raised the awareness of ECC’s Heritage Officer, Owen Cambridge, to the recent wanton destruction of a medieval clay-bonded local Heavitree and red sandstone wall at the rear of 30 – 32 Longbrook Street that was clearly visible from King William Street. It stood on part of the combined site that was given planning permission in 2018 for purpose built student accommodation (PBSA), with this historic wall incorporated sensitively in the design. The open view from King William Street through to New North Road and Bailey Street as seen in this photograph is the result of the demolition of the medieval wall seen here in the Heritage Statement submitted with the original PBSA application.

Mr Cambridge has reacted with appropriate speed, immediately instructing the Estates Surveyor to investigate on site and asked the Planning Enforcement Officer to prepare to take action as soon as the surveyor’s evidence had been gathered and the breach formally confirmed. Subsequently, in an email thanking the Trust for our help, he advised the Trust Chair that the surveyor’s initial report showed that indeed ‘the wall has suffered severe damage’.  He gave his assurance that ECC would be taking this very seriously and that ‘although the authenticity of the wall has been lost permanently’, this ‘does not mean such actions can be done with impunity.’ He has promised to keep the Trust updated.

Many Members will recall the protracted process that finally led to permission being granted in 2018 for a purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) development on the former King Billy and Dunn’s Motor’s sites. Efforts in 2017 to persuade ECC to refuse the proposal for such use on grounds of community balance failed and sadly permission for PBSA on the site is not now up for reconsideration.

HOWEVER many significant features upon which approval depended in 2017/18 are being reconsidered and we believe it important to point out some of the key changes the developer is wanting to make as we expect many members will not approve. To assist those who do not have time to compare the myriad of documents and drawings to identify precisely what the developer is seeking, we point out some of the key changes in our commentary here.

If this application is successful it would make a mockery of the process that took place in 2017 (as would become apparent to anyone comparing the new proposals with the description in the 2017 Design and Access Statement (DAS) of the original process and rationale for the decisions agreed at that time).

The anticipated appeal against refusal of 21/1014/FUL, an application for 26 bed purpose built student accommodation on the former Maximum Motors site in Howell Road, has now been registered with ref no. APP/Y1110/W/23/3325492.

The 80 individuals or community groups who submitted objections to this application over its protracted consultation periods can be assured that their comments will be read by the inspector, but if there are any additional or revised comments these can be sent to the Inspectorate by 20 December. The appeal ref must be quoted – further details in this letter.

A number of Members have expressed concern that public access to the Valley might be curtailed under the plans being developed by Exeter University and have been anxiously awaiting the follow-up consultation which was initially scheduled for August, but postponed until now. We think many will decide that the delay was worthwhile; on studying the developing plans that are now out for consultation, it is clear that the University has taken seriously the comments made by the public in May on this as well as other key matters.

Fraser Browning, University of Exeter Sustainability Manager, has contacted the Trust keen that our members should participate. He states:

We really value the views of our community and local stakeholders as we look to finalise the designs for the Lower Hoopern Valley. Please consider these plans and let us know your thoughts via the feedback form at the link here.

We are holding an in-person exhibition on Tuesday 28 November 2023 in the Innovation Centre Café between 15.30 and 19.00. The Innovation Centre is building 25 on the campus map – feel free to drop by, chat to us and give your feedback to feed into our plans. 

As previously highlighted the Appeal Inspector upheld refusal to build student accommodation in the back garden of 47 Union Road (see here) but before waiting for the outcome of the appeal the same applicant submitted a similar application, 23/0652. This time proposing to swallow up the garden of 70 Pennsylvania Road, yet another student HMO in his portfolio. Many Trust members again made their disapproval count by submitting various sound objections. The planning officers agreed and on 23 November issued their decision to refuse, citing wide ranging reasons including non-compliance with a number of policies. All local residents who share the vision of the Neighbourhood Plan will be particularly delighted to note on this occasion that the Refusal Notice makes it clear that ‘the scheme would prejudice the objective of creating a balanced community’.