Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

10/2184/MOUT | Intermodal freight facility and freight distribution centre; 65,757 square metres of warehousing (B8); landscaping and ancillary works (Exeter Gateway). Amended proposal and updated Environmental Statement. (Extension of permission 00/P1394). | Hayes Farm (Land At) Clyst Honiton
  • Total Consulted: 69
  • Comments Received: 10
  • Objections: 8
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All

Mrs Valerie Barns (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Wed 09 Feb 2011

See letter under documents tab

Mr H Massey (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 09 Dec 2010

Please find attached our response to the renewal of outline planning permission for the Intermodal Freight Facility.

In addition to the attached response, we wish to draw your attention to the proposed removal of two key conditions:

1. The proposal to remove the restriction on night time lorry movements once the Clyst Honiton bypass is built.
This will allow the facility to be used 24hrs a day and cause significant environmental health impacts on residents of Station Road who will clearly have their quality of life dramatically affected. This would clearly take away our ?right to peaceful enjoyment of our property' and as such would contravene the human rights act.

2. The removal of the requirement for the railhead to be completed before the warehousing is put in place - and instead allowing it to be added after the facility is effectively completed.
This converts the application from an ?Intermodal Facility' to simply a very large road warehouse. It then looses all of the environmental credentials which supposedly this site is being built to support. It's location was chosen due to its proximity to the railway line, so if this was not a condition, the need for this facility in this location could be called in to question.

10/2184/MFUL Intermodal freight facility and freight distribution centre; 65,757 square metres of warehousing (B8); landscaping and ancillary works (Exeter Gateway). Amended proposal and updated Environmental Statement. (Renewal of permission 00/P1394). Hayes Farm (Land At) Clyst Honiton

This objection is based upon the response of Broadclyst Parish Council. We fully endorse their objection to this proposal.

The Massey Family of Clystlands House, Station Road, Broadclyst strongly object to this proposal for the following the reasons 1 - 3:

Amendment to Conditions 32,33 & 34
Which propose to change the re-application from an Intermodal Freight Facility, to a road-to-road Warehousing and Distribution Facility.

1. The original planning application was presented as a ?greener' solution, making good use of the planned new rail facilities to reduce the road-to-road movements as far as possible with the major development in this area. If planning permission is granted allowing the developers to build up to 50,000 M2 before full provision of the Rail Head is required, then prime agricultural land will be sacrificed for warehouse facilities which could not be seen as a forward-thinking environmental response to the increased HGV traffic generated. It is completely out of keeping with the rural nature of the area and road-to-road warehousing should be located on a Brown Field site.

2. To be commercially viable, a significant number of HGV movements would have to take place to transport sufficiently large quantities of goods. The noise, airborne pollution and visual pollution this would cause would be detrimental to all local residents.
The original planning permission granted (00/P1394) included the restriction that the loading and unloading of freight and traffic movements would not happen throughout the day and night. The amendment to remove this condition and allow HGV movements 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is totally unacceptable. There will be a significant impact on both light and noise pollution with day time operations, but to allow 24/7 operations would significantly impact on our quality of life in this rural area. Supposedly Exeter & East of Devon development was planned to be in the forefront of new developments reducing environmental impact and our carbon footprint.

Amendment to Condition 44

3. We would wish the Clyst Honiton By-Pass to be the only access route for all WDF movements, as agreed in the original permission and this condition should not be removed.

Additional considerations which should be taken into account:

4. The River Clyst regularly floods at Clyst Honiton. The removal of part of the flood plain and the impact of the loss of a significant amount of permeable land will adversely affect the flooding risk downstream of the proposed development.

5. The proposed development is on top of a major aquifer, relied upon by the majority of residents living in older houses within the area to provide all of the drinking water required by their families. A large number of these wells are not documented and will probably not appear on the surveys which have been carried out. The proposed development will adversely affect both the quantity and quality of water entering the aquifer and could have serious health consequences.

6. There is an existing closed landfill site within the proposed development area. This would require opening and excavation, causing potential airborne, surface water and ground water pollution. This will have a serious impact on the health of local residents who extract drinking water from the aquifer.

7. The proposed development will have a significant impact on local wildlife, both within the site itself, and downstream in the River Clyst. There are a number of protected species found within the site (Newts, Bats, Badgers) and also within the River Clyst, which is one of the few remaining habitats of the threatened Austropotamobius pallipes - the White Clawed Crayfish. It is also a significant habitat for the Otter and Water Vole.

Chris Wollacott (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 08 Dec 2010

This facility is in close proximity of my home and I object on the basis of adverse impact upon my quality of life, with refrence to increased noise, light pollution, visibility, disruption and the impact on wildlife and traffic.
There could be a better use if there was a direct passenger rail link from the Airport to Exeter Central & St Davids. I understand that the Airport terminal will be very close to the above application. I think the Planners should look outside the box and have a longer term view to assist people movement as well as traffic movement.

Ms Shelley Fowler (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Dec 2010

I object to this application on the following grounds :

1. The freight terminal is potentially no longer 'inter' modal as it is now apparently road to road modal transport / warehousing facility. The conditions have been changed so that the rail head does not have to be constructed until 50,000 m2 of warehousing is complete - this constitutes a major warehousing / transport hub without the 'green' rail link and fundamentally changes the whole principle upon which planning was previously granted. This revised condition should not be accepted. Such a facility will cause increased traffic, noise and light pollution.

2. Hours of operation - can potentially be 24 hours (until by-pass is completed) - this is entirely unacceptable and strict hours of operation (ideally no greater than 7am to 7pm Monday - Friday only) should be applied and enforced throughout to minimise disruption. Anti social hours and noise at weekends will have a significant detrimental affect on our quality of life and those in the surrounding area.

3. Noise - the noise generated by this facility will cause disruption and have an adverse impact upon our quality of life. We currently live in a peaceful environment with intermittent noise from the airport and railway but this is a noise which quickly pass - the sort of noise generated by such a facility - persistent transport noise including reversing bleeping and associated noise. The reports provided in support of the application do not appear to have been adequately updated and do not take into account the proximity of all the properties in the immediate vicinity and also the impact of seasonal changes upon noise - they are not comprehensive. Most of the plans used of the surrounding area seem to be out of date. More detail is required and more robust mitigation measures need to be considered.

4. Visibility and light pollution - the visual impact assessments do not provide adequate information and do not cover all the surrounding area affected. At the moment the view from our property towards the proposed facility is predominantly in rural and, at night mainly darkness. At the very least this must be maintained, indeed hedgerows and trees may need to be enhanced for both noise and light mitigation measures. Detailed external lighting plans for the facility must be made available and must adequately address this issue to ensure light is inward to the site and does not cause any light pollution to the surrounding area. Mitigation measures to ensure light is contained within the site must be robust.

5. Such a large freight facility (whether road to road, warehousing or rail) will increase traffic significantly, much of which will be HGV - the application needs more robust and updated transport assessments which take into account all roads in the vicinity. Adequate restrictions should be enforced on surrounding routes and the freight facility should not commence until the surrounding infrastructure (including Clyst Honiton by-pass) is fully in place.

6. There is insufficient information on the loss of habitat for a whole variety of wildlife present in the area, including deer, foxes and rabbits.

Generally the level of supporting information for this application is insufficient and does not provide sufficient detail about what the facility will actually be and therefore the impact upon the surrounding area.

This facility is potentially within 200m of our home and I object primarily on the basis of adverse impact upon our quality of life, in particular increased noise, light pollution, visibility, disruption, impact on wildlife and traffic.

Mr N Willink (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Dec 2010

I see the proposed plans include quite a substantial wooded area ,even marked on late Victorian OS maps and clearly visible from a persmissive footpath along the Clyst.
To what extent are the old trees protected?

Mr David Yelland (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Dec 2010

1. The area is a flood plain and the fields around my property are often flooded or water logged. The stream running from the airport across the bottom of my property oftern overflows. New raised areas, hard standings and new buildings will put even more strain on a finely balanced and fragile flood area.

2. The noise and extra light from the site would be an extra burden since the privatisation of the airport has led to planes taking off too early in the morning which tends to disturb sleep patterns. This is an addition to the noise coming from the TNT depot lorries, A30, M5 and the railway.

3. The effect on the wildlife as deers, foxes, rabbits, pheasants etc. will have their habitat destroyed.

Mr Keith Walton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Dec 2010

I am particulary objecting to the proposal to change conditions 32-34 in the schedule of conditions. The developers are seeking to be allowed to build and use warehouse space before the railway line is completed.

By doing so they are no longer seeking to develop an inter-modal (rail to road) freight transfer facility, but a road to road distribution centre - which is quite a different proposition alltogether. It is quite clear that once these warehouses are built, the rail link will be dropped or postponed indefinitely, and we shall be left with a road distribution centre. The volume of heavy and general vehicle traffic using such a centre will be far greater than that required to transfer freight from a train to road. This is the thin end of a very big wedge.

The Council correctly made it a condition that the railhead must be completed before any further development was permitted. These original conditions numbered 32-34 must be retained.

Mr Matthew Brailsford (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Dec 2010

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

1) Noise polution (as this development is close to residential area). There is obviously going to be a noise impact as TNT at present create noise polution after dark which in comparison is a smaller size site to the one proposed.

2) Light polution as the development will be near to residential area and be clearly visible after dark. This will be a factor in winter months and all year round if the site has 24 hour operation.

3) Traffic impact with increased HGV transport requiring access to and from the intermodal freight site.

4) Flooding Implications. The land at present is subject to flooding problems and a development on this land will increase the risk of flooding to areas beyond current flooding boundaries. The water will have to go somewhere.

5) Employment. This development doesn't provide a boost to employment in the area as warehousing and distribution centres provide low density employment.

Mr Charles Dibble (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 01 Dec 2010

I object to the plans on several counts. My main objection is the noise pollution and the inevitable flooding such a development will cause. The land either side of Hayes Farm is already subject to flooding many times each year. Extra development on this scale will have a severe impact on the surrounding environment as huge quantities of water will have nowhere else to go.

Mr paul davies (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 30 Nov 2010

I object to this application on the grounds of the inevitable noise this facility will cause, together with light pollution, being so close to residential properties.
The application if granted will also involve an increased number of HGV's using roads in the vicinity of the premises resulting in further noise and pollution.

an Idox solution