Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

15/2493/FUL | Infill of 2 no ponds with site-won material from adjacent highway works | Exmouth Fun Park Queens Drive Exmouth EX8 2AY
  • Total Consulted: 128
  • Comments Received: 116
  • Objections: 116
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 116|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

June Foster (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 29 Feb 2016

Planning application to Infil of 2 no ponds with site-won material from adjacent highways works
LOCATION: Exmouth Fun Park Queens Drive Exmouth EX8 2AY

I object to the above planning application.

Mrs June Foster
56 Elmfield Crescent

Comment submitted date: Fri 27 Nov 2015

I totally object to this planning application.

Mrs Janine Knight (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 25 Feb 2016

15/2493/FUL - Exmouth Fun Park Queens Drive Exmouth EX8 2AY

I think this is absolutely disgusting, these ponds should be listed, they have been here for years

Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Nov 2015

This is a local attraction that has been there for many years and children through many generations have enjoyed this space, why does everything have to become a concrete jungle, it's all about money and not the good of the community, no wonder children get bored and cause trouble, there will be nothing left for them to do

Mr Jack Stannard (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 16 Feb 2016

See letter under associated documents

Comment submitted date: Sun 15 Nov 2015

I object to these ridiculous proposals to destroy Exmouth Seafront and to use the swan lake as a dumping ground for waste materials.

Exmouth Community Association (Roma Patten Secretary) (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 12 Jan 2016

3 Douglas Court, 30 Douglas Avenue, Exmouth, EX8 2HJ

West Team EDDC Planning
11 January 2016

Dear West Team

Planning Application 15/2493/FUL: Infill of 2 ponds with site won material from adjacent highway work

The Exmouth Community Association (ECA), object to the infilling of these two ponds. Our concern is that once this occurs the opportunity for public consultation on the phase 3 of the Queens Drive Development will be significantly impaired.

The Queens Drive Development is an important and vital part of the town's successful future. ECA has supported the proposals for the water sports area and the rerouting of the road to accommodate this. For the QDD project to be successfully accepted by Exmouth residents, public consultation on ALL planning related applications is essential.

Yours faithfully

Roma Patten
Exmouth Community Association

Mrs C K Chessum (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 08 Jan 2016

Regarding planning application 15/2493/FUL
The plan presumes that other phases will follow. This is not guaranteed.
Loss of a well-used and well established amenity, catering for locals, visitors and people with a wide range of income bands
Loss of outdoor facility to benefit contractors' not local community
Wild life assessment of ponds needed for protected species, habitat loss. Poor exercise of duty and responsibility with regard to this area of consideration.
Not acting for citizens re negative impact own local business community, loss of livelihood to loyal local businesses where supporting and updating improvement not replacing it would be a personal preference.
Once again this does not demonstrate it will lead to innovative and imaginative changes for the losses incurred. It is part of the drive to push through income generation at the expense of the local community and environment.
This proposal reflects unilateral decision making without adequate in-depth and transparent consultation. A major concern I have is lack of enablement for people not familiar with process of raising objections.
It is taking positives which need updating not replacing and replacing them with irreversible poorer attributes in terms of quality of environment for local citizens and visitors alike.
I am very concerned that this process is not impartial and is only governed by EDDC. It has overall major irreversible implications for the town and the process is poor. The plan supports the profits for the developers not the needs of the town. We are at a time of unpredictable change with regard to weather patterns; the impact of this on the town, Exmouth may need to be far more imaginative than this. Developments such as this do not future proof Exmouth from its seafront location and this preliminary phase should be halted with the intention of a sustainable environmental review. I do not want to be levied for protecting unnecessary luxury seafront accommodation once the developers have long gone with their profits
It puts Exmouth at risk of excessive unnecessary expense at a time of austerity once more, with further costs to the local taxpayer if things do not materialise.
I cannot see how this plan fulfils the council's duty to enable and support its citizens and community as it does not have widespread support and commits the town and council and therefore its citizens to risk of multiple further losses at many levels.
The District Councillors have a duty to act in accordance with the 7 Nolan Principles of standards in public life. In rejecting this plan with full reconsideration of risks and implication in an open, transparent, objective and accountable manner would uphold these principles.


Dr H A Pike (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 22 Dec 2015

See letter under associated documents

J Langford (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 08 Dec 2015

I was never very keen on the plans for the re development of Exmouth sea front, but I am now totally against them. The original plans never included all the dwellings, these have been put in later after EDDC gained some support on the original plans. Probably fully knowing that they would change them at a later date once some approval had been gained. It seems that this development is more about what EDDC can make in rates and taxes over future years and the sale of the land than what is actually best for Exmouth.

As for filling in the boating lake because they need the space for vehicle parking whilst other work goes ahead this is another con trick by EDDC as they know once filled in it wont be able to be restored or saved. It is a disgusting act to get their own way.
When are elected councillors going to do what the people who elected them want them to instead of blindly doing what the paid officer tell them to. the officers should do what the councillors say. The tail is wagging the dog. A castrated one at that.

John Langford
27, Bradham lane

G Hodgson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 02 Dec 2015

I object to the application for the filling of ponds on the current Playpark site .

In addition to the comments I have made regarding the road realignment I believe that:-

There is no need to fill the ponds for the purposes of creating a compound for the road works.
No work should commence until plans for the area are properly explained and have been fully consulted on.

Opportunities to continue operating the Playpark until and if it is no longer viable should be pursued.

The volume of materials filling the ponds is minimal to the overall works.

It is feasible that the area may be needed to be excavated again for any future development.
It appears to be a vindictive move against the present occupier .

It could easily contribute to the area appearing derelict unnecessarily. Visitors to Exmouth front could be permanently turned away.

It appears quite feasible to keep at least part of the Playpark operative for the time being including the popular pond feature and its boats.

Complete destruction of the area appears to be a move cynically intended to induce a reaction that things must be done quickly without adequate and proper consultation.

Open air, popular and reasonably priced play facilities are to be removed to allow residential and retail development that has no particular relevance to a seaside town.

Current operators of play facilities have not been able to invest due to short term leases. EDDC is offering very long leases to proposed developers.

EDDC have not acted in good faith and appear to have obscured their true motives by calling the whole area "Splash " and that it is an upgrade rather than a destructive move.

Ms M Armstrong (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 02 Dec 2015

158 Exeter Road

1 December 2015
Planning Department
East Devon District Council
The Knowle
EX10 8HL

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref. planning application 15/2493/FUL

I write to express my deep concerns about the above planning application.

Although this is a separate application from the one referenced 15/2487/MRES (to which I have also responded), my concerns are very similar in both.

I consider this application to be premature, in that the road re-alignment (and consequential infilling of the two ponds) are the first part of three phases of what is now being considered by many as a dubious outline planning approval, none of which have been subject to a full, independent public consultation about the principle of whether such a development on the seafront is either needed or desired by the people of Exmouth.

My main concerns can be summarised as follows:
o This application is premature in that the eventual funding for the re-aligned road is dependent upon the approval of phases two and three. Therefore there is no guarantee of funding from the rest of the development, which would cost the District Council at least £1.5M.
o A full, open, independent public consultation about the new proposals has not yet been undertaken. This should include the current businesses and other facilities in that area and should be done before any planning applications are accepted and/or approved.
o This seafront area of regeneration has been deleted from the Local Plan (including the Masterplan) as Natural England has confirmed that the Habitat Regulations Assessment has not been completed by the District Council and that the Local Plan is 'not legally sound.' Therefore it is questionable whether any planning applications should be considered until both the Local Plan and a new Masterplan have been agreed.
o The environmental impacts on the area with regard to flooding and the effects on local wildlife such as badgers and Estuary birds.
o Also the question of whether the two ponds currently support any wildlife and the consequences for it of such infilling.
o The loss of two successful and popular businesses already, with the remaining businesses under continuing threat of closure.
o Both of these ponds are an integral part of one of these businesses, the 'Fun Park' and I consider it to be highly inappropriate that this hugely successful and long-standing business should suffer any such loss simply to enable this questionable road scheme to go ahead, especially as any phase three development (assuming it was approved) would be several years hence.
o The loss of up to one hundred jobs from the above businesses.

I trust you will consider my concerns as an objection to this application.

Kind regards

(Ms) Megan Armstrong

Mr Tim Todd (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Dec 2015

I would like to add information to my earlier comment on 15/2487/RES and 15/2493/FUL
I made the point earlier, that I challenge the level of support that has been claimed by EDDC for the council¿s proposals for Queens Drive. As evidence supporting that challenge I have referred to the survey carried out by Cllr Armstrong and how it directly contradicts the summaries by EDDC of their two earlier surveys.
I now submit that the following observations/representations are relevant to the lawfulness, or otherwise, of the consultation process that these applications, and others related to them, have been carried out.
I note that as of now, 16:00 hrs Tuesday 1st December 2015, that some 63 representations have been made in respect of 15/2487/RES. All 63 are objectors There is not a single representation from a supporter of the application.
I also note that, in respect of 15/2493/FUL, there are now 109 objectors making representations and, again, not a single supporting representation.
I note with concern that the substantive application 13/1819/MOUT, which was passed, received only 14 comments, 11 of which were objections, 3 of which were neutral, and that, again, there were none of support. That such a major planning application should only receive 14 comments should be a matter of very serious concern to any council that accepts it has a legal duty to genuinely consult the public on planning matters. Whilst I am confident that certain parties were over the moon that they had sneaked this past the general public, there will be others who will be shocked that EDDC now claim the support of the majority, whilst dismissing those who have engaged in debate, learned some of the facts, and are now voicing their concerns. The ruling part and senior EDDC officers should be ashamed that such a significant planning application attracted not one single representation of support from a member of the public . If ever there were any doubt that EDDC fail to inform the public, this must dispel such doubt.
To those who would suggest that planning applications only attract comment from objectors, I would refer them to the current application by M&S (15/2648/MFUL) which is still running. At the time of writing, the application has received 38 comments of which 37 are supportive and one of which is an objection. This demonstrates that residents will not restrict comments to objections. Again, when compared to the Queen¿s Drive substantive application, the contrast in representation levels, tells all that something was seriously wrong with how EDDC handled a major planning application (13/1819/MOUT ) in which it was both the applicant and the decision making planning authority.

Showing 1-10 of 116|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution