alison.bell@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/17/3177340
copying into: Planningappeals@eastdevon.gov.uk
Below is the full piece sent to the appeal authorities from the Vision Group today:
17/00040/REF
Knowle Appeal
Submission from
the Vision Group for Sidmouth
We would like to confirm that the submission made by the
Vision Group on 11th November 2016 with regard to the planning application 16/0872/MFUL
still stands:
We would nevertheless like to provide the following
additional information, on the basis of the decision made by the Development
Management Committee on 6th December 2016:
The Council hereby
refuses permission to carry out the development described in the application
and the plans attached thereto for the following reasons :
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 streetscene 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
POINT 1) VISUAL
IMPACT AND OVERDEVELOPMENT:
It can be clearly demonstrated that District Council
policies as laid out in the Local Plan have been contravened.
The application 16/0872/MFUL of 6th December 2016 was
rejected on almost identical grounds to that of application 12/1847/MOUT of 1st
March 2013.
The third reason the Development Management Committee
gave for rejecting the 2013 application can be equally applied to the latest
planning application from PegasusLife: Contrary to policy D1 (Design and
Local Distinctiveness)
The DMC considered that the application of 1st March 2013
would be 'harmful to the visual amenity and character of Station Road':
RESOLVED: that the application 12/1847/MOUT be
refused, contrary to Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:
3. The proposed development as a result of its close
relationship with Station Road and prominent position on the entrance to the
town would be harmful to the visual amenity and character of Station Road which
forms an important approach to the town through which many tourists and other
visitors to the town pass. The loss of amenity and character to this area would
be contrary to policy D1 (Design
and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
combined-special-dmc-agenda-010313.pdf
combined-dmc-agenda-020413.pdf
combined-special-dmc-agenda-010313.pdf
combined-dmc-agenda-020413.pdf
And indeed, looking at the Proposed Site Plan for the
2013 application, it was judged that these plans did pose considerable ‘impact
on the visual amenity and character of Station Road’:
http://planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=1010422&PDF=true&content=obj.pdf (document
1010422 on page 164)
The question is, however, whether the current plans would
also be ‘harmful to the visual amenity and character of Station Road’.
On the one hand, with regard to the latest plans, the
developer PegasusLife state that ‘Our site includes the EDDC buildings
and parts of the grounds including the council car park. It does not include
the car park near Station Road.’
https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=O5ICQCGH01C00 (document 2267858)
However, within the context of not building directly on
Station Road (which was a feature of the 2013 planning application), the
developer omits mention of the height and scope of the buildings on the site as
a whole. This is both considerable and unprecedented.
In fact, it has been estimated that should this go ahead,
the tallest building on the Knowle site would be the second highest in the area
- second only to the parish church:
Furthermore, such is the height and mass of the proposed
development, in the so-called ‘Dell’ site taking up the car park as well as the
larger ‘Plateau’ above, there would clearly be considerable ‘loss of
amenity and character to this area’ – not only for Station Road, but
for large parts of the town and beyond.
HOW DOES THE KNOWLE SIT IN ITS LANDSCAPE?
The building cannot be regarded separately from the
grounds.
The Knowle gardens are on the Devon Local Register.
The Devon Gardens Trust has been instrumental in
campaigning for the integrity of the grounds and gardens at Knowle. This is
from their objection to the 2013 planning application:
The parkland
of The Knowle forms part of the attractive approach to Sidmouth, providing an
important contribution to the overall historic character and landscape of the
town. In this respect the development proposed would have a significant
detrimental effect upon the setting of the conservation area and views into and
out of it.
Letter to East Devon - Knowle - 5-11-12.pdf
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: "How buildings sit in their landscape"
Letter to East Devon - Knowle - 5-11-12.pdf
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: "How buildings sit in their landscape"
PROXIMITY TO EAST DEVON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL
BEAUTY
The Knowle grounds are immediately adjacent to the East
Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – and as such are afforded more
protection than the planning application refers to:
Current maps indicate the close proximity of Knowle to
the East Devon AONB. , as does aerial photography. EDDC’s own regulatory
framework requires that proximity to AONB be taken into account:
‘The policy
stipulates that development will only be permitted within or adjacent to the
East Devon AONB where it conserves or enhances the landscape character of the
area, respects traditional local built forms and complies with policies on
development in the countryside.’ (page 130)
eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1167579/combined-dmc-agenda-120612.pdf
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: "How buildings sit in their landscape"
Futures Forum: Knowle: Victorian hotel and grounds ... application to English Heritage for national listing
eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1167579/combined-dmc-agenda-120612.pdf
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: "How buildings sit in their landscape"
Futures Forum: Knowle: Victorian hotel and grounds ... application to English Heritage for national listing
The East Devon AONB authority also makes this clear:
The EDAP would like to be consulted on planning
applications in the AONB or within
close proximity to the boundary, which fall into the following
categories and are thought to be potentially damaging to the AONB landscape and
coastline features. Residential development: applications within settlements
involving 5 or more dwellings (or, where the number of dwellings is not
indicated, the site area is 0.2 hectares or greater), except where the site is
specifically allocated for residential use in an approved plan. Outside
settlements, applications involving a smaller number of dwellings (or a smaller
site area), or the conversion of agricultural buildings, at the discretion of
the planning authority.
VISUAL IMPACT
It is clear, however, that the latest planning
application will have an impact way beyond the immediate vicinity of Knowle.
In its comment so far, the Save Our Sidmouth group,
chaired by Britain’s oldest civic society the Sid Vale Association, has
highlighted ‘the height and visual intrusiveness of the buildings, and
the massing’:
Visual impact of developer’s plans for Knowle
raises concerns
May 18, 2016
The buildings
are high (e.g. building F is nearly 7m higher than the existing roof line) and
will have a far greater visual impact than the present ones.
Present view of Knowle buildings as seen from across the Bickwell Valley:
An approximation with heights verified, of the west face of the Knowle
Plateau using Pegasus’s drawings – as not supplied in their Townscape and
Visual Impact Report. The rear buildings have been omitted here, in order to
show a section of the existing Knowle building- for scale:
View from Cotmaton,
across the Bickwell Valley
Visual impact of developer’s plans for Knowle, raises concerns | Save Our Sidmouth
Visual impact of developer’s plans for Knowle, raises concerns | Save Our Sidmouth
On the other hand, the Townscape and Visual
Landscape document from developers PegasusLife, part of the Planning, Design
and Access Statement, is breath-taking in its blasé take on the visual impact
of its proposed plans:
The Policy D1 in the adopted Local Plan makes it clear that
it is a priority of the District Council to preserve the local distinctiveness
of Sidmouth – and it is clear that this latest planning application does not do
this.
The Local Plan has several statements to that effect:
Strategy 48 - Local Distinctiveness in the Built
Environment:
Local
distinctiveness and the importance of local design standards in the development
process will be of critical importance to ensure that East Devon's towns and
villages retain their intrinsic physical built qualities. Where
towns or villages are or have been despoiled we will seek to have qualities
reinstated through good design. Use of local materials and local forms and
styles will be essential to this distinctiveness.
We will work with our partners and local communities to
produce Design Statements to guide
new development and ensure its appropriateness.
And the Policy continues with a commitment to look after
the historic landscape – which echoes the concerns of the DMC in 2013 about the
impression Sidmouth would give ‘tourists and other visitors’:
Historic Environment:
18.60 We
regard it as essential that we conserve and enhance the historic environment of
East Devon. The traditional buildings of East Devon bring pleasure to residents
and visitors alike, they form a key part of the tourism appeal of the District
and help define the identity of East Devon.
As for the Policy D1 itself, it is difficult to see how
the current planning application cannot be rejected, as it fails to observe the
key demands however many pages of Design and Access Statement there are (and
there are 125 pages) - notably with regards to 'the scale, massing,
density and height' of the buildings:
D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness:
In order to ensure that new development, including the
refurbishment of existing buildings to include renewable energy, is of a high
quality design and locally distinctive, a formal Design and Access Statement
should accompany applications setting out the design principles to be adopted
should accompany proposals for new development.
Proposals should have regard to Village and Design
Statements and other local policy proposals, including Neighbourhood Plans,
whether adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance or promoted through other
means. 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.
NOTE: There have been several other
more recent studies carried out which evidence the visual impact of the
proposed development:
POINT 2) SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSET:
The DMC’s fourth and final reason for rejecting the
planning application on 1st March 2013 also has parallels with the current
application: Contrary to policy EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of
Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest)
RESOLVED: that the application 12/1847/MOUT be
refused, contrary to Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:
4. The proposed development would have a harmful
impact on the setting of the
listed building known as Balfour Lodge which formed one of the
original gatehouses to Knowle by virtue of its close relationship and the form
of development proposed. The development would therefore be contrary to policy EN9 (Extension, Alteration
or Change of Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) of
the adopted East Devon Local Plan.
These 2013 plans would have had an impact on a listed
building:
http://planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=1010422&PDF=true&content=obj.pdf (document
1010422 on page 164)
SUMMERHOUSE IN THE GROUNDS OF KNOWLE: 2013
However, what the objection made by the DMC on 1st March
2013 to that planning application omitted was that the plans they rejected
would have had ‘a harmful impact on the
setting of the listed building known as’ … the Summerhouse.
Because what was a serious shortcoming at the time was
the undervaluing of the site’s most vulnerable Grade II Listed Building:
Rather depressingly at the time of the 2013 application,
the District Council did not seem to be particularly bothered with this Listed
Building. It was very unclear how the planning application would affect the
summerhouse:
'When you sell the Knowle, what will happen to the
listed building and the grounds that are open to the public?'
'There is a Grade II listed summerhouse in Knowle
grounds and this will be given appropriate consideration within the planning
process. It will be up to the developer to decide if they wish to retain the
structure or seek to remove or relocate it and this will be part of their planning
application.’
[EDDC: Moving and Improving site: FAQs July 2012]
This approach would certainty not endear the developers
to English Heritage:
Moreover, the Heritage Statement put together by
consultants Kensington Taylor in 2012 was rather damning of the quality of the
setting of the summerhouse:
http://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?
http://planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/lg/GFPlanningDocuments.page
http://planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/lg/GFPlanningDocuments.page
With a critique of the report from the time:
The report claims that the buildings and grounds are
‘much altered’ and that ‘the setting of the listed Summerhouse is already much
compromised and divorced from the original integrity of the extended grounds.’
This understanding of the setting is in much dispute, as has been made clear by
the submissions from established bodies including the Devon Gardens Trust and
SAVE Britain’s Heritage.
SUMMERHOUSE IN THE GROUNDS OF KNOWLE: 2016
With regard to the latest planning application at Knowle,
the developer gives some mention to the summerhouse:
The park, the car park near Station Road and the
existing Grade II listed summerhouse will remain in public ownership.
Nevertheless, as with the Kensington Taylor report of
2012, the 2016 Heritage Statement clearly intends to diminish the value of the
'setting' of the heritage asset - thereby justifying the building on the
terraces immediately above the summerhouse:
"Although there is still historic and
visual linkage between the asset and the Knowle, the degree to which
the structure is perceived as part of a Victorian garden landscape
has, however, been almost entirely lost."
And yet there seems to be some hesitation as to the value
of the terraces as part of the setting:
"The principal element of setting for this listed
building is therefore considered to be the gardens in which is
sits, whilst the wider surroundings, including the Knowle,
all provide a minimal level of value to its significance."
Heritage and Archaeology Statement from Planning, Design and Access
Statement
The Devon Gardens Trust, SAVE Britain's Heritage and
English Heritage (now known as Historic England) would disagree:
And, actually, the terracing at Knowle, which would have
been a late Victorian piece of landscaping, is in integral part of the parkland
- and as such provides the 'setting' for the summerhouse. Japanese garden
design might seem a million miles away from Sidmouth, but an observer sent in
this comment:
"Orientalism became popular in the 1860s onward which accounts for the increased exoticism of many gardens. The verandah arrangement connecting the interior
"Orientalism became popular in the 1860s onward which accounts for the increased exoticism of many gardens. The verandah arrangement connecting the interior
with the lawns could be described as oriental."
The summerhouse is just behind the evergreen tree in the
foreground to the right...
And the upper lawns above this will be built on under the
current planning application:
POINT 3) C3 USE
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
There are several other Strategies which this latest
application is 'contrary to':
BALANCED COMMUNITIES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
There has been considerable concern of late about the District's ageing population - and what that means for the balance of communities:
Futures Forum: “We need a more balanced community." >>> "The Sid Valley needs a ‘long-term vision’ to attract more young people and families,"
Futures Forum: East Devon's demographic time bomb >>> "the District Council has a duty to create balanced communities"
It is also a concern of the District Council - as detailed in the Local Plan:
Strategy 4 - Balanced Communities
By balanced communities we mean that in any area or neighbourhood there is a match between jobs, homes, education, and social and community facilities. Ideally these should complement the range of ages of the resident population and have appropriate access for those with disabilities. Key components of a balanced community include:
c) Getting more age-balanced communities - many East Devon communities have an overtly aged population profile. Where this is the case we will encourage residential development that will be suited to or provide for younger people and younger families.
This means having more affordable housing:
Strategy 34 - District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets:
Affordable housing will be required on residential developments in East Devon as follows .
Areas to which higher (50%) affordable housing targets apply:
Outside of the areas listed above (i.e. all other parts of East Devon including all settlements not listed, coastal and rural areas and Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth) 50% of the dwellings shall be affordable subject to viability considerations. The 50% figure applies to all areas that do not come under the 25% classification and which are permitted under Strategy 35 ‘Exceptions’ policy. Where a proposal does not meet the above targets it will be necessary to submit evidence to demonstrate why provision is not viable or otherwise appropriate. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets.
Five Year Land Supply and Sub-Housing Areas
20.5 The following table indentifies key monitoring indicators
Vision/Objective/ Aspiration:
Provide affordable housing to retain younger people in our neighbourhoods and communities as well as housing others in need
local-plan-adopted-text-subject-to-final-layout-changes-jan-2016.pdf
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD BE PROVIDED ON SITE
All of this is confirmed through an FOI request into correspondence with the developer before a formal planning application was submitted:
Pre Application meetings with Pegasus - a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council - WhatDoTheyKnow
The senior Planning Officer dealing with the application has made it clear that the applicant has certain obligations - and there is also disagreement over the classification of the proposed development:
Our conclusion based on this assessment and a Counsel opinion is that the proposed units should be classed as C3 (dwelling houses).
[Rather than the C2 classification desired by the
applicant. See: Building
Use Classes C1 C2 C3 - Planning Consultants London and Clarification
of Planning Classes with regards to C3(b) and C2 - GovYou]
Turning to the issue of affordable housing the newly
adopted policy of the East Devon Local Plan (Strategy 34) sets out a target of
50% affordable housing for residential development in Sidmouth. The
presumption is that such affordable housing should be provided on site. As
a result we will be seeking on-site provision of affordable housing in this
case. We appreciate that the provision of your mandatory well-being
care and support package is likely to be unviable to a registered provider but
can see no reason given the layout of the proposed units on the site why your
care and support package would have to apply to all residents. The facilities
could still be available to residents of the affordable units on the same basis
as they will be available to the wider community. We would however accept that
it would be appropriate for the affordable units to also be age restricted
and we believe that there is sufficient demand in the local area to fill the
affordable units. Strategy 34 does allow for an offsite contribution of equivalent
value to be provided where the inability to make provision on-site can be
justified through evidence from Registered Providers or for other planning
reasons. We would be open to considering a case for provision to be made
off-site but as detailed above the presumption is that provision should be made
on-site in the first instance and so the onus would be on yourselves to
demonstrate to us why this would not be possible. You should also note
that Strategy 34 is predicated on ensuring that developments are viable and so
in the event that you believe that our requirements are unviable we are willing
to consider a suitable robust and independent viability assessment. Our
usual practice is to obtain an independent appraisal of such viability
information through the District Valuer. We must advise at this stage that we
would expect the cost of the District Valuer to be borne by the
developer.
We understand that both the assessment that the scheme constitutes a C3 use and the level of affordable housing sought will come as a disappointment but we can assure you that these issues have undergone a very detailed consideration by Officers with appropriate independent legal opinion. To date we believe that we have had meaningful and constructive discussions and look forward to these continuing in respect of this issue.
We understand that both the assessment that the scheme constitutes a C3 use and the level of affordable housing sought will come as a disappointment but we can assure you that these issues have undergone a very detailed consideration by Officers with appropriate independent legal opinion. To date we believe that we have had meaningful and constructive discussions and look forward to these continuing in respect of this issue.
KnowleUseClassLetter.doc
The question to ask, therefore, is: Why, then, did the District Council chose as its preferred developer a company which specialises in building 'assisted-living apartments and wellness facilities for over 60s'?
Introduction | PegasusLife
Pegasus agreement re Knowle - a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council - WhatDoTheyKnow
It had other bidders as part of the tendering process, but nevertheless preferred PegasusLife:
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle - a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council - WhatDoTheyKnow
POINT 3a)
MARKETING ASSISTED LIVING ACCOMMODATION
[TAKEN FROM: Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: Is
PegasusLife targetting retirees outside Sidmouth?]
It has to be asked whether PegasusLife is marketing its
development to retirees outside the Sid Valley.
The chair of the Town Council's planning committee suggested
that most of the flats being proposed by PegasusLife at Knowle should be
reserved for local retirees - following a question to the developer's
representative present at the meeting with regard to how much interest there
had been from locals:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: planning application rejected again by Town Council: 85% of the development should be restricted to local residents
Enquiries can be made directly to PegasusLife on their website:
Sidmouth, Devon - Portfolio - PegasusLife
This appears to confirm that PegasusLife is targeting retirees from outside of Sidmouth - which suggests that the demand locally is insufficient.
In which case, the developer's and planning officers' "public benefit" argument is heavily outweighed by the bringing of more over-sixties to a town whose health services are overstretched and fragmented... all with an uncertain future:
eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1936385/061216-combined-dmc-agenda-compressed.pdf
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: planning application to be considered by District Council: Tuesday 6th December >>> planning officers brush aside planning policies
To refer to the objection from Councillor Consultee, District Cllr Marianne Rixson:
“I object to this application on the following grounds:
Strategy 4 - Balanced Communities
The District Public Health Summary 2015 -16 (Devon County Council) for East Devon reveals that Sidmouth has a far higher over 85 population than the rest of the country, let alone Devon. Assisted living accommodation on this site will do nothing to redress the existing imbalance.”
https://devonhealthandwellbeing.org.uk/jsna/himp/
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: planning application rejected again by Town Council: 85% of the development should be restricted to local residents
Enquiries can be made directly to PegasusLife on their website:
Sidmouth, Devon - Portfolio - PegasusLife
This appears to confirm that PegasusLife is targeting retirees from outside of Sidmouth - which suggests that the demand locally is insufficient.
In which case, the developer's and planning officers' "public benefit" argument is heavily outweighed by the bringing of more over-sixties to a town whose health services are overstretched and fragmented... all with an uncertain future:
eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1936385/061216-combined-dmc-agenda-compressed.pdf
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: planning application to be considered by District Council: Tuesday 6th December >>> planning officers brush aside planning policies
To refer to the objection from Councillor Consultee, District Cllr Marianne Rixson:
“I object to this application on the following grounds:
Strategy 4 - Balanced Communities
The District Public Health Summary 2015 -16 (Devon County Council) for East Devon reveals that Sidmouth has a far higher over 85 population than the rest of the country, let alone Devon. Assisted living accommodation on this site will do nothing to redress the existing imbalance.”
https://devonhealthandwellbeing.org.uk/jsna/himp/
See also:
POINT 3b) LACK
OF EVIDENCE OF NEED FOR ASSISTED LIVING ACCOMMODATION - EVIDENCE OF NEED FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
With regard to a parallel Appeal, developers Churchill
had hoped to build sheltered housing in Sidford:
16/0867/MFUL | Demolition of former residential care home and construction of 36 sheltered apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping. | Green Close Drakes Avenue Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9JU
The District Council's planning committee approved the application, 'subject to S106 agreement':
Development Management Committee - Tuesday 1 November 2016
With the full recommendation here:
Approval subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement
The planning officers had insisted that the developer provide 50% affordable housing - which, as it was noted at the time, contrasted with their stance over another planning application:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: and "sheer hypocrisy" >>> District Council planning officers reject the Green Close development over affordable housing and overage
Nevertheless, many found this still inadequate:
Plans for 36 apartments approved in Sidmouth - despite ‘insulting’ offer - Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald
The developer appealed against the decision:
Appeal case: app/u1105/w/17/3167556
Planning officers considered they had lost the argument:
Futures Forum: District Council gives way in Sidford over affordable housing: “Under government guidance, we are required to reduce our requirements where a development is unviable and so we have no real choice but to accept this position.”
However, on 23rd August, the appeal decision found against the developer:
planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/lg/GFPlanningDocuments.page
Looking at it in detail, the main argument was about affordable housing:
Reasons:
16/0867/MFUL | Demolition of former residential care home and construction of 36 sheltered apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping. | Green Close Drakes Avenue Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9JU
The District Council's planning committee approved the application, 'subject to S106 agreement':
Development Management Committee - Tuesday 1 November 2016
With the full recommendation here:
Approval subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement
The planning officers had insisted that the developer provide 50% affordable housing - which, as it was noted at the time, contrasted with their stance over another planning application:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: and "sheer hypocrisy" >>> District Council planning officers reject the Green Close development over affordable housing and overage
Nevertheless, many found this still inadequate:
Plans for 36 apartments approved in Sidmouth - despite ‘insulting’ offer - Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald
The developer appealed against the decision:
Appeal case: app/u1105/w/17/3167556
Planning officers considered they had lost the argument:
Futures Forum: District Council gives way in Sidford over affordable housing: “Under government guidance, we are required to reduce our requirements where a development is unviable and so we have no real choice but to accept this position.”
However, on 23rd August, the appeal decision found against the developer:
planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/lg/GFPlanningDocuments.page
Looking at it in detail, the main argument was about affordable housing:
Reasons:
14. Applications
for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The appellants have not
made the case that the Council are unable to demonstrate a 5 year land supply
of deliverable housing sites relative to needs, or by consequence that relevant
policies for the supply of housing should be considered out-of-date."
15. Strategy 34 District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets' of the Local Plan establishes how the Council will seek to secure affordable housing delivery. Paragraph 16.25 supporting strategy 34 explains, on account of demographic and economic factors, that lack of affordable housing is a critical issue in East Devon'.
16. The appeal site falls outside of any area specifically listed in strategy 34 and therefore within an area to which the higher (50%) affordable housing targets apply. Strategy 34 subsequently explains that 50% of the dwellings proposed shall be affordable subject to viability considerations'. In my view as 50% affordable housing provision is expressed as a target, this target would not be met where viability considerations demonstrate that only a lower level of provision is feasible.
17. Strategy 34 further explains that where a proposal does not meet affordable housing provision targets it will be necessary to submit evidence to demonstrate why provision is not viable or otherwise appropriate. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets'.
24. However, there is a substantial need for affordable housing in East Devon which exists at present. In my view the approach in strategy 34 related to overage is therefore equally grounded in today's circumstances in seeking to respond as fully as possible to current housing needs. This matter is brought into sharp focus by the £41,208.00 affordable housing contribution proposed falling far short of the 50% affordable housing target in strategy 34.
15. Strategy 34 District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets' of the Local Plan establishes how the Council will seek to secure affordable housing delivery. Paragraph 16.25 supporting strategy 34 explains, on account of demographic and economic factors, that lack of affordable housing is a critical issue in East Devon'.
16. The appeal site falls outside of any area specifically listed in strategy 34 and therefore within an area to which the higher (50%) affordable housing targets apply. Strategy 34 subsequently explains that 50% of the dwellings proposed shall be affordable subject to viability considerations'. In my view as 50% affordable housing provision is expressed as a target, this target would not be met where viability considerations demonstrate that only a lower level of provision is feasible.
17. Strategy 34 further explains that where a proposal does not meet affordable housing provision targets it will be necessary to submit evidence to demonstrate why provision is not viable or otherwise appropriate. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets'.
24. However, there is a substantial need for affordable housing in East Devon which exists at present. In my view the approach in strategy 34 related to overage is therefore equally grounded in today's circumstances in seeking to respond as fully as possible to current housing needs. This matter is brought into sharp focus by the £41,208.00 affordable housing contribution proposed falling far short of the 50% affordable housing target in strategy 34.
planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/lg/GFPlanningDocuments.page
16/0867/MFUL | Demolition of former residential care home and construction of 36 sheltered apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping. | Green Close Drakes Avenue Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9JU
16/0867/MFUL | Demolition of former residential care home and construction of 36 sheltered apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping. | Green Close Drakes Avenue Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9JU
There is also the issue of overage with regard to this
case:
These are similar concerns with regards to the Knowle
case:
CONCLUSION:
We would therefore urge that the appeal by
PegasusLife be rejected.
Submitted 2nd September 2017
on behalf of the Futures Forum of the Vision Group for
Sidmouth
Vision Group for Sidmouth - Submission from the Vision Group for Sidmouth 17/00040/REF Knowle Appeal
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment