Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

Water Lane Development along canal 1. Original plan for 4-6 storey apartments with retail under and a 12 storey in the middle. All comments as per Haven Banks specificant no more than 4 storey should be permitted. It would spoil a natural Riverside environment if was framed by anything over 4 high. 2. There should be consideration to providing a number of points where boat/canoe users can park and use facilities. 3. Consideration to the style of buildings should be utmost as the general appearance of all current and recent buildings of 4 storey and above in Exeter are boring square blocks. Where is the imagination? You talk of 'Garden Villages'-take a look at centre parks in Paris which shows the sort of style and use of planting to soften the appearance of any large building. Look at photos attached, centre parcs. Haven Banks (car park and bowling alley etc) 1. The original plans were for 4-6 storey buildings. Any development by the Quay, canal, Riverside should be a max. of 4 storey, otherwise it is not in keeping with the Quay area and other buildings. This is a main tourist area to Exeter and its historic heritage should be retained. 2. The removal of the parking spaces will prevent many residents of Exeter, and tourists, from using the Quay area. There is not sufficient parking spaces to accommodate everyone. 3. The reduction of cars in Exeter (your goal) is not practical until other forms of transport are provided. There is no apparent policy to improve the roads (In fact it is just impossible) you are actually make it worse by the LTN's out in place) 4. No planning or road/transport decisions/discussions/meetings should be held by ECC(planning) and DCC(Transport) without both parties being present as one needs the other. 5. Style of buildings is currently poor, no imagination. Look at photos attached of centre parcs, Paris.

How do you feel about the site at Water Lane?

Unhappy

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

The designs that are proposed for the Quay area are really not in keeping with our historical city and any good developer would take that into consideration, but the designs that we have seen are all high rise modern boxes and not in keeping and are not community friendly. (Build them high and cheap) If they could be kept to no more than 4 stories with a mix of apartments, town houses and normal houses with gardens and drives, may be in a warehouse style in keeping with the Quay or something similar to the photos shown, where the apartments are different levels with planting to softer the appearance and no more than 4 stories or a more homely community design rather than square high-rise boxes, it may be more acceptable. As for the development by the Bowling Alley, I think the design again is too high totally invading peoples privacy and light a really inconsiderate scheme. with no thought for the people who already live there and only thoughts of how much the developer can make out or the development. If there could be a more considerate design as shown in the photos I think people would be more open to the idea. But again no higher than 4 stories with different levels and planting to soften the look. Mixed with town houses and normal housing with drives and gardens would make for a more social and friendly community rather than all apartments. This should be taken into consideration with the new development of Marsh Barton too!!

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

This site includes areas of Priority Habitat (coastal and floodplain grazing marsh) and Open Mosaic Habitat. These should be mentioned in the policy to inform the reader and to stipulate any mitigation required.

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

This site includes areas of Priority Habitat (coastal and floodplain grazing marsh) and Open Mosaic Habitat. These should be mentioned in the policy to inform the reader and to stipulate any mitigation required.

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

The proposed allocation of land at Water Lane is supported in principle. However, we request some amendments to ensure the allocation facilitates delivery of mixed-use development as intended. The first paragraph of the allocation policy states that the site will deliver approximately 1,600 homes up to 2040. This is in part based on an assumption that some development will be delivered after 2040. To allow for the potential for more rapid delivery and/or a higher site development capacity arising from a detailed design process, we request that the wording is amended to make it clear that the figure of approximately 1,600 is not a cap. The first paragraph also contains a statement on ‘the retention of existing levels of employment floor-space in phases up to 2040’. The meaning of this is not clear. We therefore request that this element of the policy is re-worded to ensure clarity and reflect the allocation for mixed use, residential-led development, including employment space compatible with this mixed-use allocation. The requirement at Aii for custom and self-build plots within a mixed use development, at optimal density, of this brownfield land is not considered to be feasible (see comments on policy H6 above). We therefore request that this requirement is removed. The requirement for certain types of employment provision at B does not relate to planning Use Classes and is unclear. What, for example, is the planning requirement in relation to provision of employment in ‘transformational sectors’ and ‘maritime sectors’? We request therefore, that this requirement is re-worded to require the provision of employment space that will achieve a high-density of employment in employment activities compatible with the residential-led mixed use allocation. Requirement Dii is for electric vehicle charging points throughout the site. This again requires clarification because electric vehicle charging provision should primarily be related to the proposed mobility hubs. We therefore request that Dii is amended to require electric vehicle charging provision in convenient and accessible shared locations to serve all parts of the site. Requirement Hiii is for ‘Delivery of, or contributions to, an emergency access and egress route and access bridge over the Great Western Mainline linking to Marsh Barton.’ Provision of this route is supported, but as it will serve an area wider than the Water Lane allocation, it is not reasonable for it to be delivered by the Water Lane Development. We therefore request that this requirement is amended to (proposed policy wording (Contributions to, an emergency access and egress route and access bridge over the Great Western Mainline linking to Marsh Barton.))