town and country planning act...

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPEAL BY: Pegasus Life PROPOSAL: The construction of an assisted living

community for older people comprising extra care units, staff accommodation and communal facilities, including a kitchen, restaurant/bar/cafe, a well-being suite comprising gym, treatment rooms and pool, a communal lounge and storage facilities; car parking for residents, visitors and staff of the assisted living community; comprehensive landscaping comprising communal and private spaces; and associated groundwork’s.

LOCATION: The Knowle, Station Road, Sidmouth LPA DECISION: Refused (Three reasons) DCLG REF: APP/U1105/W/17/3177340 LPA REF: 16/0872/MFUL

PROOF OF EVIDENCE EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

The Knowle, Station Road, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 8HL Pegasus Life

__

Date: October 2017 2 Proof of Evidence EDDC ref: 16/0872/MFUL East Devon District Council APP/U1105/W/17/3177340

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 1 Background to the appeal............................................................................. 3 2 Site and surroundings .................................................................................. 5 3 Relevant planning history ............................................................................. 9 4 Material local planning documents and other relevant documents ....................... 9 5 Consideration of issues .............................................................................. 17 6 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 29

ABBREVIATIONS AONB ........................................................................................ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty NPPF ......................................................................................... National Planning Policy Framework PPG ....................................................................................................... Planning Practice Guidance EDLP ........................................................................................... East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031


__


This is the proof of evidence of Peter Blackshaw. I have a BA (Hons) degree in Town

and Country Planning and am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

I have 39 years’ experience in Development Control with five District Councils and

have dealt with a range of planning applications. I am currently a Principal

Development Officer in the Cornwall Council’s Planning and Enterprise Service.

I was not involved in the processing of the application or the composition of the case

officer’s committee report or any review of that report. I shall be giving evidence on

the effects of the proposal upon the locality and neighbouring properties; whether the

proposal is a C2 or C3 uses; whether as a result a requirement for affordable housing

is generated; the effects of the proposal on the setting of the listed Summerhouse and

the overall planning balance. This evidence will complement and add to evidence of

the Conservation Officer, Kate Baxter-Hunter.

The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this appeal in this proof of

evidence is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I confirm that the

opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.

1 Background to the appeal

1.1 This is an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for development

as described in the application and on the title page. The application was

considered by the Development Management Committee of East Devon

District Council (“the Council”) on 6 December 2016. It was resolved to refuse

the application on three grounds as follows:

1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, height, bulk and

massing would have an overly dominant impact on the public gardens

and parkland adjacent to the site and the street scene of Knowle Drive.

Furthermore the development would be visually overbearing and lead to

a significant loss of light and privacy to neighbouring properties. As a

consequence the proposed development is considered to be an

overdevelopment of the site contrary to the requirements of Strategy 6 –


__


Development within Built-Up Area Boundaries, Strategy 48 – Local

Distinctiveness in the Built Environment and Policy D1 – Design and Local

Distinctiveness of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.

2. The proposed development purports to be a C2 (extra care facility) with

no affordable housing being provided as part of the proposal. It is

however considered based on the submitted details, case law and

available guidance that the proposed units would constitute separate

residential dwellings within the C3 use class under the Use Classes Order

1987 (as amended). It is considered that the proposed development is

required to make provision for affordable housing and no mechanism has

been provided to enable such provision to be secured. The proposed

development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Strategy 34 –

District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets of the adopted East

Devon Local Plan.

3. The proposed development in respect of Building E, by virtue of its scale,

height, mass and bulk, its positioning close to the listed Summerhouse,

and the resulting loss of the existing terraces and associated landscaping,

would be harmful to the setting of the heritage asset. It is considered

that although alternatives have been considered and the public benefits

made clear these would not outweigh the identified harm and that the

development would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Strategy

26 – Development at Sidmouth, Strategy 48 – Local Distinctiveness in

the Built Environment and Policy EN9 – Development Affecting a

Designated Heritage Asset.

1.2 The decision was contrary to the officer’s recommendation. The Inspectorate

has a copy of the Decision Notice dated 9 December 2016; copies of the

officer’s report; and the minutes of the meeting.

1.3 In light of the information submitted with the appeal, the Council no longer

pursues any point about the loss of light in connection with reason for refusal

1. The appellant has been informed accordingly and the position has been

agreed in the Statement of Common Ground.


__


2 Site and surroundings

2.1 The Knowle Council offices comprise a series of connected buildings on

elevated land within the built up area of Sidmouth. They provide existing office

accommodation to the Council as well as reception and meeting facilities.

Within the wider site there is also car parking which exists on three levels on

land to the immediate north.

2.2 The site is primarily accessed from the main entrance driveway joining with

Station Road to the north-east of the site. This access driveway gradually

rises from Station Road with the three car parks all located to the south but on

increasingly higher levels as the site rises in a westerly direction. Beyond the

western most carpark the driveway turns to the south but continues to rise to

the main plateau area where the office accommodation is found. This area

has a series of red brick office buildings constructed in the mid 1970’s. From

this point the site then falls again in level in a southerly direction to the

southern building and main site frontage which was the former hotel building.

Little has changed in footprint terms of this part of the building since early

phases of expansion occurred in the mid and subsequently late 1800’s

although the building has had various uses over that time.

2.3 Surrounding the site to the south of both the main building and the car park is

mature parkland characterised by trees and shrubs of varying ages and

species. To the north of the site are the rear gardens of properties that are

accessed from the surrounding residential roads of Broadway and

Knowle Drive, while to the east a similar arrangement of houses and rear back

gardens also exists.

2.4 Currently additional vehicle access points also exist at both a midpoint along

Knowle Drive (accessing the rear of the older building) and a southern access

that leads into a service yard and depot area that is at the edge of the site and

well screened from the parkland by existing trees.

2.5 To the south of the main building beneath the terraces lies the Summerhouse

which is a grade II listed structure set within the parkland. Beyond that the


__


nearest listed buildings to the site are Balfour Lodge which lies adjacent to the

entrance to the site from Station Road and Claremont which lies on the

opposite side of Station Road from the Parkland. Other listed buildings in the

area include the Grotto at Knowle Grange and Powys House.

Proposal

2.6 The proposed development comprises the demolition and redevelopment of

the entire office complex excluding the existing care-takers flint faced building

located to the immediate south of the office reception area. This building is

hereafter referred to as building B. Overall the scheme now proposes the

construction of 113 apartments split across 6 blocks of development on the

“plateau area” or “The Plateau” (site of the existing office buildings) and an

almost completely enclosed square courtyard development straddling the

middle and upper car park areas called “The Dell” by the appellant. Additional

facilities included within the proposal comprise the provision of a

restaurant/cafe and wellness suite, staff accommodation and overnight

accommodation for visitors.

2.7 The Dell is of a very different form and character to that found on the Plateau.

The building has three main components. The most striking of these is the

Gateway building which extends to 5 storeys in the south-west corner of the

upper car park. This is already the most deeply cut area of the existing site,

although to accommodate the development, it is proposed to reduce levels by

1.3m in the corner grading back in a north and easterly direction to reach

existing ground levels.

2.8 The Gateway building would have a roof formed by two components – the

westerly half being a flat roof while the easterly half being twin shallow

pitched gables. The building itself would be largely timber clad with a range of

projecting and framed balconies to the south and east.

2.9 Taking a similar articulation and form to the pitched roof section of the

Gateway building, two parallel wings (terraces) would run on a north to south

alignment to the north and east of the Gateway building. The more easterly of

these would be two storeys in height while the northern wing would be three


__


storeys. These would again be strongly defined by feature balconies which are

largely positioned on the easterly elevation. The building would be finished in

a mix of render and timber with a timber shingle roof covering.

2.10 Linking the gateway building and the easterly terrace and positioned on an

east west axis is the plant area, wellness suite and restaurant. These uses are

located within a crisp render finished building of one and two storeys.

Additional residential apartments are proposed within the first floor above the

restaurant. A short east-west return would also exist to the north and

partially enclose the resulting square courtyard.

2.11 On the plateau area the built development would take the form of six blocks of

accommodation labelled A-F within the plans. The following provides a brief

summary of each:

A – Upon arriving on the plateau area this building would be located to the

south-west of the entrance driveway and is linked to block F (see below). It

would be positioned along an alignment with a slight south-west to north-east

emphasis and take the form of a three storey flat roofed section to the north,

a pair of asymmetrical gables both running at right angles to the main axis

and a second pair of gables with linking valley on the axis of the main building.

The building which would be set 1.3m lower than the existing floor level of the

office building and include integral ground floor parking on the west elevation.

It would be finished with a mixed palette of materials including coursed

knapped flint grading to render, brick and timber. For the roof the

development would utilise a red clay tile. The building would also feature a

range of balcony elements.

B – This is the retained and adapted caretaker’s accommodation located to the

south of the main entrance driveway and forming office and visitor

accommodation for the proposed development. This would be largely retained

in its current form but would be provided with a timber balcony on the north

elevation. Where it is currently joined to existing buildings, the exposed faces

would match the new development.


__


C and D – These buildings initially follow a similar alignment to building A

before a crank in the form turns the building to the south. The northern

section (building C) is a four storey building with pairs of ridges following both

the main building axis and running at right angles to it. This follows the same

design rationale as Building A including the same palette of materials and

again featuring a range of balcony protrusions and cut away roof sections.

Building D initially drops to 3 storeys in height with a narrow flat roofed linking

section. As it steps down from the existing upper to middle lawned terrace,

the development achieves four storeys of accommodation as a result of the

change in levels. This element is dominated by two gables which face over the

formal gardens but with a feature derived from the cut away nature of the

western of the two gables to provide a large third floor balcony. At ground

floor and with public access onto the associated terrace there is a glazed

“orangery” building.

E – This is a stand-alone building that is only linked to D by means of a new

retaining wall that both provides a means of changing levels and encloses the

private gardens formed within the courtyard of the buildings being described

as A-F. This wall stands at 3.4m high and would form a backdrop to the

formal public gardens. Building E would be positioned on a north-east to

south-west alignment with its southern most corner set behind that of building

D. This building would be largely positioned on the existing upper terrace. It

would present a pair of staggered gables to the south-east with third floor

balcony to the west and single off set gable at right angles to its main axis.

Two gables would continue to extend back on the main axis to the north-west.

This building would maintain the palette and detailing as the buildings already

described.

F – This building is aligned south-west north-east and is linked to building A.

Together with the associated pedestrian gates in between the respective

buildings described, this would complete the enclosure of the private amenity

space within the inner courtyard. This building is again four storeys in height

with a pitched clay tile roof above. In this instance it is formed with a hipped

gable on its south-west elevation (punctuated by cut away balconies) and


__


projecting flat roof dormer window style protrusion, a single gable on the

north-east including a large third floor balcony, an externally mounted

chimney and a pair of staggered gables facing into the courtyard on the south-

east elevation. This building continues the same style of development as

described for the other plateau buildings including the same palette of

materials.

2.12 For the development the scheme proposes 123 car parking spaces (comprising

1 per unit) with 10 visitor spaces. These are provided along the south side of

the retained entrance drive, as integral ground floor parking under the three

storey pitched roof section of the Dell and as integral ground floor parking

within blocks A and F. In addition it is proposed that there is a designated car

park located on the existing depot area in the southern corner of the

development site.

3 Relevant planning history

3.1 12/1847/MOUT – Outline application proposing demolition of existing buildings

(retention of building B) for class D1 non-residential institution and park

rangers station (Sui Generis), residential development of up to 50no. dwellings

(Class C3 use), 60no. bed graduated care home (Class C2 use) and access (all

matters reserved except access). Refused (08.03.2013).

4 Material local planning documents and other relevant

documents

East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031

4.1 The East Devon Local Plan was the subject of examination hearings in 2014

and 2015. The Inspector’s final report dated 15 January 2016 concluded that

subject to modifications the plan met the criteria for soundness in the NPPF.

The plan (including modifications) was adopted on 28 January 2016. It forms


__


the development plan for the locality. The plan is arranged in two sections one

relating to strategic approach and policies and the other Development

Management Policies.

4.2 Strategy 1 sets out the spatial strategy to accommodate 17100 new homes

and some 150 ha of employment land within the District over three specific

areas. The bulk of development is to be accommodated in the ‘West–End’

closer to Exeter. Then follow the 7 main towns serving their own needs and

that of their surrounding areas; and finally, local needs in smaller towns,

villages and rural areas.

4.3 Strategy 2 sets out the scale and distribution of development putting figures

to the three areas identified in Strategy 1.

4.4 The Plan goes on to define Built-Up Area Boundaries relating to the main

towns (Including Sidmouth) Strategy 6 sets out the criteria for development

within those boundaries:

1. It would be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings

and in villages with the rural character of the settlement.

2. It would not lead to unacceptable pressure on services and would not

adversely affect risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

3. It would not damage, and where practical, it will support promotion of

wildlife, landscape, townscape or historic interests.

4. It would not involve the loss of land of local amenity importance or of

recreational value.

5. It would not impair highway safety or traffic flows.

6. It would not prejudice the development potential of an adjacent site.

4.5 The plan considers and sets out strategies and policies for the ‘West–End’ and

the seven major towns. Section 14 of the plan refers to Sidmouth and

recognises an elderly population profile. Strategy 26 envisages for the town

limited development within the Built Up Area Boundary with a small 50 home


__


allowance. This is further identified in the policy as being at the current

Council offices site (the appeal site). A further 50 dwellings are also allocated

to two other sites.

4.6 Paragraph 16.25 identifies affordable housing as being a critical issue for

East Devon, reflecting an earlier reference in the document to affordable

housing being a top priority. Strategy 34 sets out the parameters for

Affordable Housing provision on residential developments. Two targets are

specified of 25% provision for certain named towns and 50% provision

elsewhere. These proportions are based on detailed assessments of the levels

of affordable housing that are viable in different parts of the district. Sidmouth

falls into the latter (50%) category reflecting the higher value of properties

and the greater viability of development in the town compared with lower

value areas of the district. These targets are sought subject to viability

considerations. Provision is to be made on-site unless exempted by

Government Policy or Guidance, is not mathematically possible or where off-

site provision of equivalent value is justified. Where levels of affordable

housing are below policy targets on a development, an overage clause is to be

sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision.

4.7 Strategy 36 recognises that East Devon has many elderly people and that

numbers are expected to increase. As such the policy requires all residential

developments of 10 or more dwellings having a proportion of dwellings which

are compatible with the Building Regulation requirements for Accessible and

Adaptable Dwellings. Also set out in the policy is a figure of 50 Care/Extra

Care home spaces to be provided in Sidmouth and other towns. Where

provision of such homes is proposed on allocated sites the actual need for

such provision needs to be established beforehand. The policy also indicates

that account will be taken of overall contributions for affordable housing.

4.8 Strategy 48 seeks to ensure the recognition of locally distinctive styles and

materials. This is reinforced by the promotion of high quality, locally distinctive

development through policy D1 with seven criteria:


__


Proposals will only be permitted where they:

1. Respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which

the development is proposed.

2. Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and

materials of buildings relate well to their context.

3. Do not adversely affect:

a) The distinctive historic or architectural character of the area.

b) The urban form, in terms of significant street patterns, groups of

buildings and open spaces.

c) Important landscape characteristics, prominent topographical

features and important ecological features.

d) Trees worthy of retention.

e) The amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

f) The amenity of occupants of proposed future residential properties,

with respect to access to open space, storage space for bins and

bicycles and prams and other uses; these considerations can be

especially important in respect of proposals for conversions into flats.

4. Have due regard for important aspects of detail and quality and should

incorporate:

a) Secure and attractive layouts with safe and convenient access for the

whole community, including disabled users.

b) Measures to create a safe environment for the community and reduce

the potential for crime.

c) Use of appropriate building materials and techniques respecting local

tradition and vernacular styles as well as, where possible,

contributing to low embodied energy and CO2 reduction.


__


d) Necessary and appropriate street lighting and furniture and, subject

to negotiation with developers, public art integral to the design.

e) Features that maintain good levels of daylight and sunlight into and

between buildings to minimise the need for powered lighting.

f) Appropriate ‘greening’ measures relating to landscaping and planting,

open space provision and permeability of hard surfaces.

5. Incorporate measures to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the risks

associated with climate change. Measures to secure management of

waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle,

recovery, disposal) should also feature in proposals during the

construction and operational phases.

6. Green Infrastructure and open spaces should be designed and located in

a way that will minimise any potential security concerns for users.

7. Mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as noise, smell, dust, arising

from developments, both during and after construction.

4.9 Policy EN9 relating to proposals involving Heritage Assets and their setting

reflects the NPPF. Where there is substantial harm or total removal this will be

resisted, unless there is substantial public benefit. For less than significant

harm that will be weighed against public benefits of the proposal, with

favourable consideration given for proposals that enhance or better reveal the

significance of the asset.

National Planning Policy Framework

4.10 The Framework sets out three dimensions to sustainable development of

economics, social and environment with an inclusive approach (paras 7

and 8). As sustainable development is assessed against the entirety of the

NPPF from para 18-215 (paragraph 6), it follows that if any of the paragraphs

is not met the development cannot be considered sustainable.

4.11 The core principles at paragraph 17 include seeking high quality design and


__


good standards of amenity for existing and future occupiers of buildings;

recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; making

effective use of land; conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to

their significance and actively manage growth to make fullest possible use of

public transport, walking and cycling and includes proactively supporting

economic development to deliver thriving local places.

4.12 The supply of housing is to be significantly boosted (para 47) with housing

applications considered in the context of a presumption in favour of

sustainable development (para 49). However, it should be noted that

sustainability is to be assessed against the remainder of the document. A mix

of housing is encouraged at para 50, which also indicates that where

affordable housing is needed this should be provided on-site, unless off site

provision or a contribution can be justified.

4.13 Great importance is attached to the design of the built environment and good

design should contribute positively to making places better for people

(para 56) and be inclusive (para 57) respond to local character and history,

reflecting surroundings and materials with an appropriate mix of uses,

including green space and other public space (para 58) although appropriate

innovation in design should not be discouraged. This advice is repeated in

para 60, which also emphasises that it is proper to promote or reinforce local

distinctiveness. Paragraph 61 seeks to ensure that new development

integrates with the natural, built and historic environment. Paragraph 64

advocates that proposals which do not enhance the quality of an area should

be refused.

4.14 Social interaction and healthy communities are recognised as being part of

sustainable development. This includes the provision of high quality open

space, facilities for people to meet together with the provision of social,

cultural and recreational facilities (paras 69 and 70).

4.15 At paragraph 109 there is an overall requirement to ensure that development

contributes to and enhances the natural and local environment and is

supported by 5 criteria. In the following paragraph (110) the aim should be to


__


minimise ‘…other adverse effects on the local and natural environment.’

4.16 The NPPF seeks a positive conservation strategy for heritage assets (including

listed buildings) by emphasising the desirability of enhancing the significance

of a heritage asset (para 126) and minimising the impact on a heritage asset

(para 129). Paragraph 131 states ‘In determining planning applications, local

planning authorities should take account of:

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage

assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to

sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local

character and distinctiveness.’

4.17 Great weight is to be assigned to the conservation of historic assets

(para 132) recognising that significance can be harmed or lost through

alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its

setting. This weighting exercise is also to be undertaken where the harm is

less than substantial (para 134). At para 137 it suggests the favourable

treatment of proposals which make a positive contribution to or better reveal

the significance of the asset. Paragraph 138 advises that not all elements will

necessarily contribute to significance but account should be taken of relevant

significance of the elements and the contribution it makes to the whole when

assessing under para 133 or 134.

Planning Practice Guidance

4.18 The NPPF has been supplemented by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The

Guidance confirms that recognition of the intrinsic beauty and character of the

countryside is one of the core national principles.

4.19 Under the section on the Natural Environment, the recognition of the intrinsic

character and beauty of the countryside is repeated and the use of landscape

character assessments encouraged (ID 8-001-20140306).


__


4.20 The importance of the historic environment to the aims of sustainable

development and as a core planning principle is reiterated in the guidance

In Decision Taking: Historic Environment, emphasis is placed upon assessing

the significance of the asset and taking a proportionate view of the effects of a

proposal upon that asset or its setting. It recognises that substantial harm is

a high test and is based upon the degree of harm to the assets significance

(ID: 18a-017-20140306). In this and the Framework, the setting of a heritage

asset is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore

be more extensive than its curtilage.

4.21 Good design is an integral part of sustainable development. It responds in a

creative and practical way to both the function and identity of a place (ID: 26-

001020140306)

4.22 Planning is to promote local character by responding and reinforcing locally

distinctive patterns with the successful integration of all forms of development

with their surrounding context being an important design objective,

irrespective of location (ID: 26-007-20140306).

Historic environment good practice advice in planning - Note 3 – The Setting

of Heritage Assets

4.23 This document published by Historic England sets out guidance for the

assessment of the effects of proposed development on the setting of an

historic asset. It emphasises that setting is separate from the concepts of

curtilage, character and context.

4.24 Extent of a setting is not easily defined and cannot be defined by a set

boundary. Within urban areas and conservation areas there will be overlapping

settings and the setting may reflect the character of the wider landscape. In

this and the Framework the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in

which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its

curtilage.

4.25 Heritage policy is considered further in Kate Baxter-Hunter’s proof of evidence.


__


5 Consideration of issues

5.1 The principal issues in this appeal are:

a. Whether the proposal is appropriate for the locality having regard to

effects upon the visual amenity and character of the area and any

adjoining residential properties;

b. Whether the proposal is for a C2 use, or for a C3 use, in circumstances

where a C3 use would ordinarily generate a requirement for affordable

housing;

c. Whether there is any adverse effect upon the setting of the listed

Summerhouse and the extent of that impact; and

d. Overall planning balance.

Issue (a) – Effect upon character and appearance of locality and

neighbouring properties

Existing

5.2 The offices of East Devon District Council occupy part of an area of parkland to

the north west of the centre of Sidmouth. The offices are located towards the

highest part of the parkland with car parks occupying lower areas of land to

the north-east. The offices comprise a mixture of buildings: modern 2 storied

brick, a two storied traditional building in brick with flint walls; and a part of a

former hotel Knowle House which presents a three storied façade to the south

and the parkland.

5.3 To the north, west and south is residential development along the Broadway

(north) and Knowle Drive (west and south). Properties in Broadway are

predominantly bungalows with rooms in the roof. Properties along the east

side of Knowle drive are similar in height but are set down slightly from the

road itself. Dwellings on the west side of Knowle Drive are predominantly two

storied and set behind a high brick wall. The exception is the property known

as Old Walls which opens directly onto the road opposite the modern Council


__


offices. The latter is set down from the road level at this point.

5.4 The buildings at the Council Offices have limited impact (positive or negative)

upon the surrounding properties. This is due in part to the extensive tree and

shrub planting in the parkland; the current buildings being two storeys and set

down; the two storied height of the buildings, which do not intrude and

integrate with the modest scale of the surrounding residential properties; and

the use of brick, giving a recessive appearance to the building. Approaching

along Knowle Drive, the current office buildings remains screened by existing

buildings and foliage until slightly before the property known as Hillcrest. From

the north end of Knowle Drive the ridge of Hillcrest is discernible but little else.

5.5 The exception is the former Knowle House. This was placed to make the most

of a southern aspect and sloping land to give views across the parkland to the

sea beyond. From the parkland itself the building is an orderly symmetrical

building with a regular pattern of windows. It has a character much in keeping

with the Regency and Victorian buildings found in the main part of the town,

particularly the terraced properties. Its prominence is heightened by the

terracing in front, which forms part of the structure of the landscaped parkland

and draws the eye towards the building.

5.6 As parkland open to the public, this area is much used for recreation and

leisure. Users of the parkland would be sensitive receptors with their attention

focussed on these surroundings.

Proposal

5.7 Approaching from the entrance on Station Road, the car park would be

replaced by chalet style buildings with the Gateway building occupying the

higher ground close to the point where the existing offices start. The chalet

style buildings, although of only two stories, are not of a character or scale

found in the locality. The grouping is dominated by the Gateway building at its

south west corner. This five storied structure would out-top the lower

restaurant and wellness suite structures as well as the Chalets.

5.8 This Gateway building has a substantial footprint thus giving the building an


__


imposing scale and mass. I note that the Design Review Panel, which was

generally positive about the proposal, had concerns regarding the mass of the

building in terms of its size and the inclusion of pitched roofs adding further

bulk to the structure.

5.9 View P4, submitted with the application, demonstrates that from this particular

viewpoint, the Dell range of buildings will occupy and breach the skyline, albeit

partly screened by trees. The dominance of the buildings and particularly the

Gateway building over the surrounding open land is clear. This contrasts with

the scale of the existing residential structures also seen from this viewpoint.

5.10 From the Gateway building, there is a small area of open ground until reaching

Building A. This introduces a section (the Plateau) of the proposal of different

character and form from The Dell. Building A is located close to Knowle Drive

to the west of the site. Currently, the Council Offices in this location are L

shaped and of two stories set down from the road.

5.11 Building A has a lower section nearest Hillcrest some 1.5 m above the height

of the current offices. The remainder of the building rises to some 6m at the

ridge of the pitched roofs. This is to accommodate an extra storey. Although

the building is ‘pulled back’ from Knowle Drive, this is offset by an increase in

height to three stories. The height and bulk of the building would be readily

apparent, matching the height of trees to the east of the current building.

5.12 This height is substantially above the ridge height of Hillcrest and will be a

prominent feature when viewed along Knowle Drive as there are no other

similar sized structures visible on this approach. With a deeper footprint than

the existing offices, the scale of the building would be unduly prominent in the

street scene.

5.13 This is illustrated in View P2. The proposed structure of the building presents a

double gable angled towards the viewer, thereby increasing the mass and

prominence of the building in the street scene.

5.14 Building F would be located along from building A in the successive view along

Knowle Drive. In this view both buildings are of a similar height and massing


__


and are read cumulatively in the approach along Knowle Drive. Given the

context of domestic scale one and two storey detached properties in large

plots, these buildings are out of proportion with these surroundings and

dominate them in terms of height, bulk, and massing. I note again that this

relationship was of concern to the Design Review Panel when giving advice on

the plans and that there is little opportunity for mitigation in this part of the

site. The character of the site as seen from Knowle Drive would change

substantially from a recessive low building to a building where the scale, bulk

and height of the building would be dominant in views.

5.15 Both residents of Knowle Drive and those using the road would be highly

sensitive receptors. The changes to the surroundings would have a significant

and adverse effect upon the experience of those receptors.

5.16 The proposal shows the replacement of Knowle House with two buildings (E

and D) of four storeys in height. They are located South of the existing

building. Two garden terraces are lost as a result. In spite of this ‘lowering’ of

the base of the building, both would be substantially higher than the existing

building. Building D has one elevation facing south.

5.17 The other (building E) is located at an angle to the parallel terraced land and

presents a corner to the south. The location of building E is slightly to the west

of the existing building. The building turns away from the parkland and the

sea views beyond. It loses a sense of connection and purpose in the

relationship between building and vistas.

5.18 Although a space exists between buildings E and D, the extent of built form on

this prominent part of the site will appear both higher and longer. This would

be emphasised by the linking orangery structure. The resulting structures

diminish the openness of the site in their projection forward of the existing

building. This would be readily observable to users of the gardens to the south

and limit appreciation of the parkland area in the loss of characteristic

features.

5.19 Both proposed buildings are of a complex design with little symmetry or order

which characterised the buildings they replace. In my view their height, plot


__


coverage and scale would unacceptably dominate this vista. This is

demonstrated in the CGI images submitted with the appeal (View 4 and View

5.5). The effect which would not be lessened by the tree canopies on the east

side of the building. It is considered that this would result in a significant

adverse effect upon the local character.

5.20 The parkland is a much used facility by persons whose attention would be

focussed on their surroundings. I consider that these users will be highly

sensitive to change and will find the proposed development to be a significant

adverse change.

Effect on adjoining properties

5.21 From Hillcrest itself the current building barely projects above an intervening

garden wall. In contrast, Building A will project substantially above this and

being a deeper building than the current will occupy a greater extent of view.

The height, scale and bulk of the building would be oppressive and dominant

in the south outlook from Hillcrest.

5.22 Furthermore, the proposal has enclosed balconies on both floors facing

Hillcrest and projecting balconies to the west elevation. Timber slatted

screening panels are proposed in the elevations directly facing Hillcrest. This

suggests that the opening will not be fully closed with a degree of space

between screen components. The orientation of the building is also such that

oblique views are likely to be obtained from these balconies. The external

projecting balconies will also be discerned from Hillcrest.

5.23 The extent of overlooking is normally determined by distance. As a general

rule 21 metres is considered sufficient to protect privacy. Notwithstanding this

there would be a high degree of perception of being overlooked. Although it

could be argued that currently there is a degree of overlooking from Council

Offices, this is limited in terms of the times of day and days of the week. The

proposal will be occupied continuously and with the additional storey with its

balconies the perception of being overlooked would be heightened

significantly.


__


5.24 While the provision of a solid screen would remove some degree of

overlooking, such a solution is not considered to be feasible to cover off any

oblique views. Thus such a planning condition would not be effective in

preventing actual or perceived overlooking.

5.25 Also, in terms of the overbearing nature of the development, the east side of

Hillcrest is currently free of any built form. This will be altered significantly by

the introduction of the Gateway building. The overall height of this building

exceeds that of Hillcrest. The elevation facing Hillcrest would contain both

windows and inset balconies. This at its closest would be some 21.7 m from

Hillcrest according to drawing 584_P_117 submitted with the appeal.

Notwithstanding this distance and an intervening tree screen, it is my view

that the Rear (east) side of Hillcrest will be overlooked. The tree screen would

not be effective throughout the year.

5.26 Effectively the combination of building A and the Gateway building in terms of

their height, bulk and scale would effectively enclose the east and south sides

of Hillcrest. The windows and balconies in the new buildings would overlook

the property and its currently private garden areas. This would diminish the

residential amenity of that property and does not represent development

which enhances and improves the places in which people live their lives.

5.27 The issue of overbearing extends to Old Walls and Blue Hayes on the opposite

side of Knowle Drive. The principal elevation of Old Walls, a low two storey

traditional cottage, faces the site and the frontage is largely open. Blue Hayes

is a large two storied dwelling set back a little further than Old Walls. Both

properties face the site and in the case of Old Walls, which is situated on a

corner, buildings A and F will be directly opposite.

5.28 Buildings A and F are high bulky structures with twin gable walls and high

roofs. The relationship the buildings to Old Walls is illustrated in the sections

shown on plans 584_P_112 (Sections H, J, and K) and 584_P_312 (Section D).

These show that the difference in heights between the overall heights of Old

Walls and the new structures is some 4.5 m. This additional storey extends

across over a greater distance along the road side than the current building.


__


5.29 The effect of this would be to dominate and enclose the relatively open aspect

of the principal elevation of Old Walls thereby adversely harming the

residential amenity of the occupants. Blue Hayes is set back but I consider

that notwithstanding distance and partial screening from the wall along Knowle

Drive, the proposal would be also be imposing and dominant in the outlook

from this property.

Conclusion

5.30 It is concluded that the quantum of development on the site and the way that

it is laid out is such that the locality in general and the amenity of adjoining

dwellings would be adversely affected. The Local Plan figure is unlikely to

involve such harm and fulfils the need identified during the promulgation of

the Local Plan.

Issue (b) – C2 or C3 use / need for affordable housing

5.31 The proposal is described as providing ‘extra-care’ accommodation. It is

suggested by the appellant that this falls within Class C2 of the Use Classes

Order (1987) (as amended). This Class comprises uses for the provision of

residential accommodation and care to people in need of care other than a use

falling within Class C3. Care is defined as personal care for people in need of

care by reason of old age, disablement, mental disorder or alcohol or drug

dependence.

5.32 Definitions of extra care are found in other documents. The Exeter Housing

Market Area SHMA definition is ‘…housing which offers self-contained

accommodation together with communal facilities and where care, as well as

support, services are provided from a team based on site.’ And in the East

Devon Infrastructure Planning Evidence Base Report, ‘Extra care housing

enables older people to live in their own apartments (clustered in groups of

50) in a designated development for the elderly, with 24-hour care and

support services on site.’


__


5.33 The appellant suggests that there are factors which suggest that the use is a

C2 use. These are:

1. Specialised physical features and adaptations to enable residents to

remain in their home;

2. A range of on-site facilities to include wellness suite, restaurant/café,

cinema room, residents lounge, visitor accommodation and staffed office;

3. Age restriction with one resident being over 60 years old; and

4. A compulsory health needs package.

5.34 The current proposal is for a range of self-contained accommodation from 1 to

3 bedrooms. This accommodation is in the form of blocks of flats or grouped

units. These units would be adaptable, but if these units adopt the lifetime

homes standards there would be no distinction between these and a similar

non extra care development. However, it is recognised that such adaptable

units could be a characteristic of extra care schemes.

5.35 In this proposal, there are communal facilities provided which may be used by

residents, if required. However, those facilities are also more generally

available for public use. It is suggested in the LIN Viewpoint 20 document that

in this circumstance this is little different to a housing complex (see page 5).

5.36 The age limitation is itself no indicator of the degree of care required. Many

persons of 60 and over are active and in little need of care. In a C2

classification it is the provision of care which is the characteristic of the class.

LIN viewpoint 20 and the RTPI Good Practice Note indicate that the degree of

care to residents is a crucial indicator of a C2 use in an extra care scheme.

5.37 Added to this is the lack of an on-site team of carers and/or 24 hour cover.

This is a theme which is also covered in the Exeter Housing Market SHMA and

the East Devon Infrastructure Planning report. Both describe care and support

services being provided on site.

5.38 In this proposal, there is no carer on-site and only limited accommodation for


__


carers to stop over. The appellant proposes to limit accommodation to those

where one member is 60+ and to provide a Health package. This includes a

monitoring system and the provision of a minimum of 2 hours ‘care’ per week.

This is defined as including components such as parking cars, ordering food

online, arranging visitor access and household chores and deliveries. These

elements are not clearly care. In any event, there is little distinction in these

elements between someone occupying their own home with visiting care,

which would be a C3 use.

5.39 When combined with the limited level of care provided and the public

accessibility of the facilities it is concluded that the proposal does not

represent an institutional residential use. It would be reasonable to regard the

development as a complex of dwellings with facilities which, although linked,

are not dependent upon the occupiers of the complex using them exclusively.

Viability

5.40 The appellant has submitted a viability report which indicates that in the event

that the proposal is considered to fall within class C3 (rather than C2) the

provision of affordable housing either on-site or off-site would make the

proposal unviable. The Council has had this information independently

assessed and, subject to the imposition of a review mechanism if the

Inspector considers that the proposal falls within use class C3, the position is

agreed between the two parties.

Issue (c) – Harm to heritage assets

5.41 Close to the southern boundary of the site is a listed structure known as the

Summerhouse. Kate Baxter-Hunter’s evidence examines the status and

historic character of the structure; and its setting.

5.42 Great weight is given to the conservation of a heritage asset under the NPPF.

The Courts have also held that considerable importance and weight is attached

to the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of the setting of

a listed building. This implies a strong presumption against the granting of

planning permission for development which affects the setting of a listed


__


building.

5.43 Kate Baxter-Hunter has assessed the current proposal as causing less than

substantial harm. I agree with her assessment. Where the harm is less than

substantial a balancing exercise against public benefit is required under both

NPPF (para 134) and Policy EN9 of the EDLP. However, the test under para

134 involves a presumption in favour of preservation of the heritage asset and

not a presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission.

5.44 A range of public benefits accruing from the development are suggested by

the appellantss. These include the viable re-use and enhancement of building

B; the provision of an orangery, restaurant and wellness suite open to the

public; meeting a need for private care facilities in the locality; reduction in

traffic movements from the site; the provision of housing; retention of public

paths through the site; and the provision of an interpretation board to assist in

the appreciation of the Summerhouse.

5.45 These benefits could be secured through any development proposal for the

site. The Council has suggested a re-design of the proposal to set back

Building D to the current building line. It was considered that this was not

likely to have an adverse effect upon the listed building. The appellant did not

agree to this citing viability as a reason. While it is accepted that the proposal

would not be viable if a need for affordable housing was introduced (subject to

a review mechanism). It has not been shown that a reduction in the extent of

building D would make the scheme unviable.

5.46 In the circumstance that considerable importance and weight is attached to

the preservation of the setting of a listed building, the public benefits would

need to be substantial and overriding. Given the benefits with the current

proposal are not unique and could be achieved through other forms of

development; it is considered they can only be given limited weight which

measured against that of the listed building is insufficient.

Issue (d) – Planning balance

5.47 It is a statutory requirement that planning decisions are to be made in


__


accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. As noted above, the Development Plan for the area is the East

Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 adopted on 28 January 2016 having met the

criteria for soundness in the NPPF.

5.48 It is also a statutory requirement under section 66 of the Planning (Listed

Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that planning decisions shall have

specific regard to the desirability or preserving a listed building or its setting.

5.49 The East Devon Local Plan sets out the development strategy for the locality.

It seeks to provide housing in sustainable locations with a mix of housing

types and tenure reflecting paras 47, 49 and 50 of the NPPF. Strategy 26

allows for limited development within the built limits of specified settlements.

Strategies 34 and 36 seek to ensure a mix of housing through the provision of

affordable housing and easy care housing respectively.

5.50 All development is to be compatible with the character of the site and its

surroundings under strategy 6, with local distinctiveness being promoted

under strategy 48 backed by Policy D1. These policies are reflective of paras

56 to 61 of the NPPF. The proposal does not meet the requirements of these

policies as, for the reasons above, it is not compatible with the local character

of the site and will adversely affect the residential amenities of Hillcrest.

5.51 In terms of the effects upon the Heritage Asset, both NPPF para 134 and East

Devon Local Plan Policy EN9 requires a balancing exercise where the harm to

the asset is less than substantial. In this instance the public benefits are

neither substantial or overriding.

5.52 The policies of the plan seek to direct development to the ‘West End’ and

seven major towns of which Sidmouth is one such town. Strategy 26

envisages limited development within a defined built up area boundary.

Strategy 34 sets out parameters for the provision of affordable housing.

5.53 Policy 36 relates directly to extra care facilities in recognition of the numbers

of elderly persons already living in the district. For Sidmouth, a figure of 50

care/extra care homes is suggested. This figure is derived from the East


__


Devon Infrastructure Planning Evidence Base Report which supported the Local

Plan. The current proposal exceeds this figure by more than twofold and, as

such, represents a departure from the plan.

5.54 The appellant claims this is to meet a need and have produced a Care Housing

Needs Assessment. This refers generally to the provision of accommodation

for older persons but falls short of providing an alternative figure for need. No

updated or more precise assessment has been produced.

5.55 By contrast, the Devon Commissioning Strategy for Extra Care Housing (Sept

09) considered the matter on a county and local level. This concluded that the

optimum size is 50 units and that the need in Sidmouth is 50 units. This is

taken forward in the sound and NPPF compliant local plan.

5.56 It is acknowledged that supporting living for the elderly can have benefits in

the reduction to the costs of health and social services. However, it does not

address the provision of mixed and inclusive communities which supports

sustainable development. The EDLP identifies and makes provision for an

identified need in Sidmouth for an additional 50 extra care spaces. However,

the plan also flags up that the provision of affordable housing is a priority. This

is reflected in the target of 50% provision in residential development in

Sidmouth. In plain terms, this proposal is a residential development in

Sidmouth which makes no provision for affordable housing but more than

meets the identified need in the Local Plan.

5.57 Against this is to be set the benefits of the scheme. While there is no detailed

business plan, I accept that a number of jobs will be created by the scheme –

both construction jobs and jobs in the new facilities. Other suggested benefits

are an addition to the housing stock (albeit with possibly no element of

affordability), provision of accommodation for older people, the possible

release of other dwellings, the provision of a range of support facilities and

facilities for use by the public. These are all material considerations that weigh

in favour of the development. However, I consider that collectively they do not

outweigh the harm caused by the proposal or the requirement to determine

applications in accordance with the development plan which has been recently


__


adopted and found sound. To do otherwise would not result in the

achievement of a plan-led system.

5.58 I do not consider that a strong need case has been made out. I accept that

the provision of residential and/or extra care accommodation is supported in

Sidmouth, and at the appeal site in particular. However, not to the scale

proposed here.

6 Conclusions

6.1 The appeal site is part of the grounds of EDDC offices which includes an area

of publicly available parkland. The grounds are landscaped and contain many

examples of trees and shrubs. The offices occupy the north-west part of the

site and contain a range of buildings the majority of which are modern low key

two storey brick. The Knowle building is part of a former hotel and in an

elevated position accentuated by the terraced landscape facing south over the

parkland. The building is three storied of an ordered and regular design

reminiscent of the Regency and Victorian terraces in the main part of the

town. Surrounding development is in the form of low key single and two

storey residential properties set in large plots. This gives the area an open and

spacious feel. Buildings seldom impose themselves.

6.2 The proposal is to replace the buildings on the site with a collection of

buildings concentrated in two groups. These would provide 113 units of

assisted living accommodation for older people with a range of communal

facilities. The buildings are arranged in blocks of predominantly 3 and 4 stories

in height.

6.3 Policies of the East Devon Local Plan allow for development within the built

limits of towns where compatible with the site and surroundings and there is

no harm to townscape or historic interests. Developments also need a tenure

that they respond to local characteristics and ensure that scale, massing,

height and materials relate well to their context and that the amenity of

occupants is not compromised. Policy 36 of the plan identifies a figure of 50


__


Care/Extra Care home spaces to be provided in Sidmouth. And Strategy 34

requires new residential development to make a provision for affordable

housing subject to viability considerations.

6.4 The Dell section of the proposal would introduce built form into an open area

currently used for parking. This section comprises chalet style apartments, a

wellness suite and restaurant and at the higher point of the ground, a five

storied building containing flats. The latter is a substantial building on the site

which will dominate the existing open setting. Furthermore, the Gateway

building is located to the east of Hillcrest an area currently free from built

form. The building would incorporate balconies which face towards Hillcrest.

6.5 Building A of the proposal introduces a building substantially higher than the

existing Council Offices and of greater bulk into an area of low single and two

storey dwellings. It is linked to building F further along Knowle Drive. Together

this height and massing would be out of proportion with and not integrate well

with the domestic scale of the neighbouring properties. The imposing nature

of the building would also adversely affect Old Walls and Blue Hayes. The

amenities and living conditions of the properties identified will not be

enhanced or improved as required by one of the planning principles set out in

para 17 of the NPPF and would not result in the quality of development and

integration with its context sought by Strategy 26 of the EDLP

6.6 The proposal seeks to provide an extra care facility. There is no definition of

this term in Use Class C2 which solely refers to care. Other definitions have

been made in the SHMA and background documents to the local plan. In each

instance, care has to be provided on site. It is the levels of care that appear to

be the determining factor. Age cannot really be a determining factor as may

60 year olds are active individuals requiring little if any care and it will be the

case that some of the residents, although older may not be in need of care.

6.7 A minimum level of care is to be provided by the proposal with little

accommodation for on-site carers. Each of the residential units is to be

self-contained and although restaurant and leisure facilities are provided at the

site, the use for these is both optional and open to public use. This is little


__


different from a housing complex. Other elements of care are akin to the

provision of services in a person’s own home and do not stray into a more

institutional, full time care model. It is concluded that due to these factors the

use should be considered as a C3 use, which would generate a provision for

affordable housing.

6.8 A listed Summerhouse lies close to the south boundary of the appeal site. The

building is intended to be seen as remote from the main building and within a

specious backdrop. The proposal would result in a four storeyed building within

16m of the listed structure and the removal of terracing which forms part of

the landscape character of that setting. The character and appearance of the

setting of a listed building is afforded significant weight. This proposal would

adversely harm that setting and the policy requirements are that such harm

should be measured against the public benefits of the scheme. It is

considered that such benefits are insufficient to outweigh the harm caused.

6.9 The Development Plan allows for the provision of a 50 unit extra care facility

to be provided in Sidmouth, subject to criteria relating to design and

integration. This figure has been arrived at through firstly a strategy

developed by Devon County Council to recognise and accommodate extra care

facilities throughout the county and in towns. This was followed by the

Infrastructure planning document providing evidence in support of the then

emerging local plan.

6.10 The development at 113 units exceeds the development plan figure

substantially. In addition policies setting out development design criteria are

not met by the proposal, nor are policies which seek to protect heritage

assets. There are benefits associated with the scheme, none of which are

sufficient either individually or collectively to outweigh the relatively recent

policies of the development plan.

East Devon District Council

town and country planning act...

Documents