Author: danwyn

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’.  

The Appeal Inspector has decided to dismiss the applicant’s appeal against the City Council’s refusal of 22/0397, an application for 10 bedroom purpose built student accommodation in the rear garden of 47 Union Road, itself a student House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) with a licence to accommodate 13 tenants. A victory for all those individuals who submitted objections in defence of our Neighbourhood Plan.

The Inspector agreed that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, and with regard to the Neighbourhood Plan failing to comply with a number of policies: C2, EN4, EN5, and D1.

Click here to view the relevant NP policies

Application 23/1161/FUL: Construction of a three-storey building to create 3 x 2-bedroom flats and associated landscaping. Land Adjacent To No 14 Old Park Road/ Land To The Rear Of 67 And 69 Longbrook Street Old Park Road Exeter

Please continue to help stem the tide; object by 29 October.

The contributions of numerous Trust Members who have submitted their individual objections to the Union Road and Pennsylvania Road applications, above, should not be under-estimated in these decisions. The Board would now encourage all to object to the latest application for a 3 storey block of flats in the rear curtilage of two large student HMOs, 67 and 69 Longbrook Street mentioning issues related, for example, to design and heritage, that are clearly relevant planning policy matters. We suggest care is needed in this instance regarding the issue of community balance! Read the Trust commentary here to find out why. Feel free to draw upon these comments to word your own objection.

This time an application to build a two storey purpose built student accommodation block comprising 6 bedrooms in the rear garden of 70 Pennsylvania Road. Clearly non-compliant with our Neighbourhood Plan by worsening community imbalance, it is over-intensification of building use in a garden which will impact on ecological benefits bordering as it does Devonshire Place Orchard. Furthermore it will reduce the outdoor amenity space for the existing occupants of the property. Again, another inappropriate development in the Longbrook Conservation Area.

In the interest of community balance and defence of the Neighbourhood Plan please send in your objections via the Council’s Planning Portal under reference 23/0652/FUL by the closing date of Sunday 1 October.

On Monday 4 September the outline planning application for up to 9 private residential flats on the site of former Maximum Motors garage in Howell Road was presented to Planning Committee. The planning officer recommended approval explaining that, at face value, the proposal was compliant with all relevant policies but grave concern over the genuine nature of this application remains. The owner has stated his intention to develop the site as student accommodation one way or another and, despite this apparently acceptable alternative outline proposal, he will not withdraw the appeal against his recently refused application to build a 26-bed purpose built student accommodation block on the same site.

Consistent with our Neighbourhood Plan this original application was refused on grounds of community balance but what is to stop this new proposal from being used ultimately as student accommodation? If these Howell Road flats were occupied by three or more unrelated individuals, they would be classed as HMOs and subject to an Article 4 Direction (A4D) designed to prevent single households being used as shared houses. However the Council’s own admission – blaming a lack of “resource and scope” – that it had never enforced the A4D in St James does not inspire confidence.

The reassurance given in the Planning Officer’s Report that A4D will protect the proposed flats from use as student HMOs looks like a hollow promise. We must hold the Council to account and should this development go ahead ensure that none of these flats are used as student HMOs.