Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: deadline for comments >>> Friday 11th November >>> further amendments to PegasusLife planning application
This was sent into the District Council's planning department earlier today from the VGS:
Objection to
planning application 16/0872/MFUL
Futures Forum of the Vision Group for Sidmouth
10th November 2016
We would like to make a further submission to the
planning application 16/0872/MFUL and would object on these grounds:
The concerns of planning officers have not been taken
into consideration:
> C2/C3 status:
“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. [And 'viability' is
a very slippery commodity: Revealed:
how developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing |
Cities | The Guardian and The
truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities
and ruining our cities | Cities | The Guardian]
KnowleUseClassLetter.doc
KnowleUseClassLetter.doc
> Encroaching the upper lawns:
“You will note from
the attached consultation feedback that there is an outstanding objection from
our specialist conservation team - most importantly raising concerns about the
setting of the Listed summerhouse (folly). This is not an objection that we can
take lightly as the tests within legislation and national guidance are very
specific and attract significant weight in any planning decision requiring us
to give this matter special regard. Where there is harm to the setting of a
listed building we should only allow this where it is in the wider public
interest and we do not see that being the case in this instance. As such, this
is a matter that weighs very heavily against the proposal and needs addressing.
“To
remove the harm to the setting of the listed building we recommend that
Building E be set back such that it does not project materially beyond the
southern-most point of the existing elevation.”
This is unsustainable development:
> Increased flooding risk:
“In their original
application PegasusLife planned to reduce the amount of rainwater going into
the town’s drains by diverting excess water into soakaways. However, their
latest ground survey has shown that the types of soil and their distribution
means this is ‘not technically feasible’. An alternative solution was to
install attenuation tanks (basically large holding tanks that drain slowly)
near the existing car park and under the EDDC depot at the SW corner of the
site. It turns out that these tanks would have to be so large to cope with
predicted flows they would be difficult and expensive to build. PegasusLife make it clear in their letter
they do not want to deal with this problem, partly because “it is not viable in
terms of cost for the project”.”
> Visual impact:
EDDC Ward Member
for Sidmouth, Cllr Cathy Gardner (East Devon Alliance) has argued that the planned Pegasus Life development would
be visible from both the areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) flanking
Sidmouth to the east and west.
“And Mike Temple, a Sidmouth resident for
over 30 years, emphasises that “The visual impact from far afield will be worse
than you might imagine, because many of the
trees screening the existing buildings on the west side of the development will
be cut down.””
“Councillor Cathy Gardner also questioned an
independent report from the Design Review Panel (DRP) – because it was paid for
by applicant PegasusLife. However, the developer has refuted this,
insisting the expert advice is impartial.
Cllr Gardner, a Sidmouth Town ward
representative, said: “New photomontages accurately reveal the impact of the
proposed development, notably the views from the southern park and from upper
Knowle Drive.
“But PegasusLife has left out the view from
the western side of Sidmouth, where the development dominates the Sidmouth
skyline.
“Most
significantly, the central objections of overdevelopment, excessive heights and
massing, and the overbearing impact of the development on the south park and on
local residents have been completely ignored.
“When any of the larger surrounding trees
are lost, as they inevitably will be, this giant modernist design will dominate
this historic town for years to come.””
On behalf of the Futures Forum of the Vision Group for
Sidmouth
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment