Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

20/1660/OUT | Outline application with all matters reserved for the demolition of a garage and the construction of a two storey dwelling | Laylocks Town Hill Broadclyst Exeter EX5 3EJ
  • Total Consulted: 9
  • Comments Received: 9
  • Objections: 9
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All

C Mewse (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Sep 2020

Dear Sirs

I would like to register my objection to the planning application 20/1660/OUT Laylocks Town Hill Broadclyst on the following grounds;

o The construction of the proposed dwelling in a conservation area would be over development and not in keeping with the listed buildings and National Trust properties in the street
o The area already suffers from traffic congestion, noise and pollution that spill out on to adjoining roads such as Hellings Gardens at least twice a day during school term, during events being held at the local village hall and sports events. Traffic spills over from the car park causing confrontation between residents and visitors which both my wife and I have had to suffer. Also inconsiderate parking where cars not only turn on our drive but have at times actually parked on our drive. We believe that the addition of another residence with more cars will only exacerbate the situation particularly as the proposal is to remove a garage.
o The bottom of Town Hill already suffers from flooding at times and building on ground that would currently take some of that rain water can only increase the flood risk with additional stress put on the drainage system from the house as well; Also increasing the risk of foul water flooding on other properties in the street
o Many residents already raise these issues with the local council on a regular basis and meetings have been held with the local council and school to try and reduce the impact on residents, it seems without success.
Yours Faithfully

C A Mewse

A Suanders (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 08 Sep 2020


1. This proposal relates to the development of a narrow infill site between two
existing detached residential properties within Broadclyst Conservation Area.

It has been submitted as an outline application, without the detailed drawings, [ floor
plans, elevations and a "street-scene" ] necessary to confirm that the appearance of
the new house will fit into its surroundings, and that its presence will not adversely
affect the residential amenities of adjacent properties..

The lack of drawings is accompanied by an absence of adequate written information.
Bearing in mind that the site is within a Conservation Area, and also close to a listed
building, it is disappointing that no "Statement of Significance" has been submitted,
despite this being necessary under the District Council's validation requirements.

Any proposal for demolition of a building within a Conservation Area, will now
normally require planning permission. Such applications will also require a Statement
of Significance.

2. Although it contains some terraces, the part of the Conservation Area within which
the site is located is mostly characterised by substantial wide-frontage detached, or
semi-detached pairs of houses which are set well apart in quite generous plots which
provide open space and through-views between the buildings.

However, with this proposal, the new house would take up most of the space
between Laylocks and Cedar View producing a tight juxtaposition of three detached
structures which would appear cramped and out of character with the area.
In addition, the submitted block plan indicates that the new house would present a
narrow frontage onto the road, which is also uncharacteristic of the area.

3. The absence of detailed drawings also means that it is not possible to know
whether the new house will create problems of overshadowing, overlooking and loss
of privacy to Cedar View, and it should be noted that the front elevation of the new
house would be directly opposite 5 Town Hill Cottages, which, when scaled on the
Block Plan, appears to be only about 16 metres away.

4. Whilst it is accepted that the current appearance of the site is rather utilitarian, it
has the considerable merit, due to the low profile of the garage, of preserving the
visual separation between the two existing houses and safeguarding the throughview.
This would no longer be the case if the single storey garage was to be replaced
with a two-storey house.

The assurances given in the document "Additional information" are not backed-up or
demonstrated by any drawn information.

The arrangements described would not respect the pattern, grain and characteristics
of the area which have led to its special designation in the first place, and the
fundamental conflict with its context that this form of development would create
cannot be overcome merely by architectural "styling".

5. In a Conservation Area the test that any proposal must pass before it can be
granted planning permission, is that it must demonstrate that it will "preserve or
enhance" the character and appearance of the area.

The approval of this application would irrevocably establish the principle of the
development of this site.

In its present form with an absence of any detailed drawings, it is not possible to
establish that this can be carried out in an acceptable form.

Andrew Saunders

G & C Mortimore Jones (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Sep 2020

See letter under associated documents

M Pearce (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Sep 2020

I write regarding the application to for a two storey dwelling proposed, detached to the property known as Laylocks referenced above. I oppose to this proposal on the following grounds:
As a stakeholder of the Primary School and regular user of the services in the vicinity (e.g. the shop, Village Hall and GP surgery) I feel an additional detached dwelling would contravene the National Planning Policy Framework (11. Making effective use of land; 117 '(?) safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.')
A new residential dwelling would potentially bring increased traffic and pollution to a street that is already overburdened by school traffic and pedestrians, with School Lane being the designated entry route to Broadclyst Community Primary School. I am particularly concerned about the proposed 'demolition of a garage' and subsequent building works required to carry out this proposal and potential road closures and or obstructions.
There are no pavements within the street and no designated space for two lanes. I feel that any increase in traffic from additional residents would be detrimental to the safeguarding of residents and school children.
The proposed dwelling would be located almost opposite the entry into School Lane which further increases the potential risk to school pedestrians whilst the building works are being carried out and by vehicles potentially linked to this residence.
I kindly request that my concern and opposition to this proposal is taken into account during the decision process.
Yours sincerely,
Maria Pearce

Mr Ben Evans (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 02 Sep 2020

I object to this proposal based on;

Traffic and car port design
1. The increased allowance for car parking space at the property. This part of the village suffers from considerable traffic congestion particularly during school pick up and drop off times and is located very close to a busy crossing point where school children access School Lane. I note a car port allowing up to 4 vehicles are shown on the site plan and this seems contrary to the residents own well reported traffic survey that has been presented both to the school and parish council.
2. Increased allowance for car parking space when both the parish, district and county councils have declared a climate change emergency is also contradictory to meeting our ambitions to reduce dependency on vehicles and relevant strategies to reduce this reliance should include conditions that discourage further dependence on cars and encourage active travel. This proposal does not align to this aim.
3. The vehicle port is also designed with the vehicles facing outwards on to Town Hill. This is a risk to pedestrians and vehicles on the highway in this location as vehicles are likely to reverse directly out on to the road as opposed to parking parallel to it where visibility of other road users is improved.
4. From a visual appearance point of view, viewing 4 cars parked in a car port is also hardly an improvement within a conservation area.

Increased impact on sewage network
Adding further foul drainage to the sewer network in this location adds further risk of direct discharges of sewage occurring to the River Clyst which is already a failing watercourse under the Water Framework Directive. Pumping stations nearby on Town Hill and further down the network near Mosshayne bridge (pumping station just off the B3181 next to the M5 motorway bridge between Broadclyst and Westclyst). As a reminder the Clyst itself then flows into the Exe Estuary SPA/SAC/Ramsar which must be protected from no deterioration. The water company must prove that there is capacity in the network without causing deterioration and as the competent authority you must be satisfied that what they are telling you is correct (even if they report that there is capacity). They are a private company and not a regulatory body.

Proposed design not in-keeping with the conservation area
The email submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal and in consultation with the National Trust (but not from the National Trust) indicates that a rendered wall will be built along the front of the existing property thus hiding it from view. This is not in keeping with any of the other properties on this road and indeed the existing stone wall is more in keeping than a new rendered wall as proposed.

Mr anthony mallett (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 02 Sep 2020

I have lived opposite proposed planning application since 1992.
I oppose the building of a new dwelling,on the grounds that it will detract the ammount of light entering my property as we only have windows on the front of the house so any extra buildings opposite will affect natural light.
Also the new property will be directly opposite, looking right into my property,as my property and adjoining houses are all national trust,they only benefit from wooden windows with single glazing.
So any extra noise would be heard by each house even with windows shut.
In the time i have lived here (28 years) the local primary school,which is in close proximity to townhill has grew in size considerably,making Townhill into a car park for much of the day.
This in turn has caused a massive increase in volume of traffic,parking congestion,and walking traffic.
This would only be added to with extra traffic and work vehicles involved with any building works.
Also in the time i have lived here we have had flooding to either end of townhill,with some of the houses having flood damage,which the NT will have a record of.
The water also gathers opposite my property where the road has a slight channel in it and can be quite a substancial ammount at times,if another property was built opposite the water would run off into this and possibly push the water to my side of the road,as we only have a 2" threshold straight off the road this may allow the water to enter the property.
When it rains hard and there is a lot of surface water the drains cant cope with the ammount of water.
A new drain system was put along a small section of townhill ending at my garden it then joins the old system which is smaller and the water backs up and lifts a 4'x4' inspection cover of its drainwhich is just of the road in my drive/garden, which then takes 2 people to replace because of the size and weight.
this would not cope with extra water and would lift more often which would leave a large deep drain open and not visible to people or animals as it floods leaving drain obscured from view.
These are my views for opposing,as i dont think townhill can cope with extra buildings,water and traffic.

Mrs Shelley Bennett (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 02 Sep 2020

With further consultation we understand that EDDC would not normally give any consideration to an outline application that is within a Conservation Area, and near to Listed Buildings.
A recently approved dwelling in a garden within Broadclyst that is not in the Conservation Area, involved EDDC requesting detailed design to evaluate the impact on neighbouring properties. The client was not able to provide this at an early stage, so they conditioned the approval to ensure only a single storey dwelling be erected. We are given to understand that the site at Laylocks is not large enough for a single storey larger footprint building in this respect.
The application falls short of providing working scheme drawings that adequately demonstrate parking and access arrangements, private amenity space for the new dwelling, and illustrate site sections to show how it fits within neighbouring buildings without harming their privacy. As we have outlined in our letter dated 19/08/20, we object to the proposal with significant concerns regarding all such potential details and their impact.

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Sep 2020

We have further concerns regarding risk of flooding, as follows:

In the deeds of Cedar View there is specific attention drawn to the requirement for our 'garden well' to be kept clear (and not infilled) to cater for the current run off requirements from Laylocks. Adding another property between Laylocks and ourselves, further burdens the current drainage capacity in our garden and poses a risk of flooding to our property.

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Sep 2020

We object to the planning application on the following grounds:-

e) Increased flood risk within Town Hill and Town End

Number 5 Town hill has a storm drain within the utility of the property and Number 2 has a sewage drain in the bathroom and we are informed that both drains lift during heavy rainfall indicating that public drains within the street are not adequately meeting current demands let alone those of an additional dwelling. This flood risk could therefore create a risk of damage to the original character properties in the street. The PDF attached is a Southwest water Drainage map Illustrating the two newer public drains that converge on the old single drain further down Town Hill which clearly is not able to meet the needs of heavy rainfall as indicated in photo 7 taken December 2019. Adding another dwelling to the street and increasing this run off would further burden the drainage system and create a frequent risk of flooding in the area.

Our full objection letter containing photo evidence and PDF has been emailed to the planning department.

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Sep 2020

We object to the planning application on the following grounds:-

a) Loss of open space within the conservation area
Open spaces within the conservation area are protected features and the loss of this to the proposed dwelling will result in a very cramped street scene in Town Hill that is out of character to the heart of the conservation area. This loss of amenity negatively impacts the quality of life for us as well as other residents within the street.

b) Loss of sun and light
Being sited to the immediate east and south east of our home (Cedar View) the proposed dwelling will exclude morning sun and overshadow our property, our first floor balcony at the back of our house, and our garden. We currently experience only a small amount of overshadowing from the boundary hedge and we are satisfied with this for the benefit of privacy. We do not however experience overshadowing or loss of light by the internal leylandii hedge referred to in the Design and Access statement and therefore the impact of the new proposed dwelling will be significant and detrimental in comparison.
The location of the proposed dwelling suggests that it will be sited within extreme close proximity to the east wall of our house and will therefore completely block the bedroom window on this side, taking both its light and outlook and replacing it with the side wall of the proposed dwelling.

c) Loss of privacy
Currently our home benefits from open green garden space between ourselves and Laylocks of approx. 10-15 metres, which offers us a great deal of privacy. The location of the proposed dwelling and its curtilage will bring new residents to within a metre or two of our boundary, running the whole length of our garden and resulting in a significant loss of privacy. There is likely to be an increase in noise and disturbance experienced from the close proximity of these potential neighbours and their vehicles.
The position of our first-floor balcony on the south East side of our home means that the resulting proposed dwelling would also lack privacy since we would have direct views into their immediate home and garden. The privacy of Laylocks in this respect is currently preserved by the approx. 12 foot leylandii hedge which to our knowledge was in situ prior to our house being built in the 1980s.

d) Overbearing development
The scale and location of the proposed dwelling should be refused on the grounds that it has an overbearing and dominant impact on its surroundings in particular on our home and garden at Cedar View. The 'Berlin wall' nature of the west side of the proposed dwelling would be particularly overbearing on the East side first floor bedroom, the balcony at the back of our property, as well as our garden, running approximately half its length.

Our full objection letter containing photo evidence has been emailed to the planning department.

Mr Scott Bennett (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Sep 2020

The proposal indicates that additional off-street parking will be created by retracting the front stone wall and garden of Laylocks to accommodate this. Despite this we believe there is insufficient space to adequately cater for the additional needs of the proposed dwelling whilst guaranteeing that access to our own drive remains clear at all times. To enter our drive we require a sufficiently wide turning circle, of which we have a right of way, because of its angle to the road (when approaching from B3181) and this risks being compromised and leading to future and further neighbour disputes. We therefore do not feel comfortable contracting to a shared driveway agreement with an additional dwelling with these points in mind. The drive is also often used as an unofficial turning circle/passing place for school traffic as the rest of the road becomes very congested which can and has created access issues and disputes. With more cars using the drive this would be heightened further.

S W Schlich (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 27 Aug 2020

I object to this application on the ground that the site is not large enough to support another dwelling.

an Idox solution