Appeal by Senior Living Urban (Epsom) Limited – Ref: APP\/P3610\/W\/21\/3272074
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Site Address: Epsom Ewell & St. Hellier NHS Trust, Epsom General Hospital Dorking Road,
EPSOM, KT18 7EG<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Response: Appeal by Senior Living Urban (Epsom) Limited – Ref: APP\/P3610\/W\/21\/3272074 Site Address: Epsom Ewell & St. Hellier NHS Trust, Epsom General Hospital Dorking Road,EPSOM, KT18 7EG Preliminary Epsom Civic Society and Woodcote (Epsom) Residents\u2019 Society both submitted objectionsto the local … Continue reading
Preliminary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
to the local planning authority about this application and we have been advised that they
have been forwarded to you along with all other relevant documents submitted to the
LPA. Our shared view remains unchanged that the proposal, being much higher than the
hospital\u2019s Wells Wing, presents an unacceptable physical intrusion in terms of height and
mass. The Report to Committee was, in our view, less than robust and was not balanced
in its professional analysis and recommendations. To recommend approving this planning
scheme with the potential for significant long-term adverse impacts on streetscape and
neighbours\u2019 amenity and one that fails to meet priority housing need is in both Societies\u2019
view not compliant with key local policies, nor with central government objectives in
promoting good design and retention of local character and distinctiveness. We support
our Borough\u2019s transition into a modern market town where character and heritage are
valued not only for their history but for their contribution to future quality of life and wellbeing. We seek to avoid the transformation of Epsom into a generic high-rise town.<\/li>
safeguard our local character and identity and which does not protect existing residential
amenity. To achieve this, we have clearly stated in written representations and in a Zoom
meeting and separate webinar organised by the applicant that the maximum height of the
development should be no more than 6 storeys in order not to exceed the height of the
Wells hospital building. The frontage onto Woodcote Green Road should be set back to
allow a much more substantial landscaping buffer to the Millennium Green opposite,
should not exceed 3 storeys next to 40 Woodcote Green Road and should be set further
away from the south-western boundary to comply with townscape and residential
amenity requirements. Epsom Civic Society and Woodcote (Epsom) Residents\u2019 Society are
extremely disappointed that our views and those of over 600 residents who objected to
the scheme have been largely ignored.
Response to Appeal<\/strong><\/li>
Reason for refusal 1
The proposed development by reason of its height, mass, scale and design would adversely
impact and harm the character and appearance of the area (including the built
environment and landscape setting), failing to comply with Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy
(2007), Policies DM9, DM10 and DM11 of the Development Management Policies
Document (2015) and paragraphs 122 and 127 of the NPPF (2019).<\/li>
predominant height across the application site. 9 storeys is equivalent to a height above
ground level of nearly 33 metres, but when allowance is made for the lift shafts on the
roofs this would rise to over 35 metres in height. This should be compared to the height
of existing buildings across the entire Epsom Hospital estate which are mainly 5 storeys
or less (ie up to 20 metres in height). The roof top plant of the Wells Wing is the exception
and rises to 28.7 metres height and this dominates the existing skyline out of all
proportion to the rest of the hospital buildings. The surroundings to the hospital site are
predominantly two storey brick and tile traditional suburban housing. The 9-storey
buildings proposed, so massive in scale, would stand out as a prominent and incongruous
eyesore visible for miles around \u2013 including anywhere in fact from where the present
chimney can be seen, including from Epsom Downs near the Racecourse. They would be
the tallest buildings in the Borough.<\/li>
national and local planning policy guidance. Insofar as national planning policy guidance
is concerned Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Feb 2019 requires
that \u2018planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:
b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and
effective landscaping;
c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built
environment and landscape setting\u2019<\/li>
applications. This sets out 10 characteristics that form good design and one of these is
\u2018Local Identity\u2019 and that well-designed new development should be influenced by:
\u2022 an appreciation and understanding of vernacular, local or regional character, including
existing built form, landscape and local architectural precedents;
and that the following should be considered in response to local character and identity:
\u2022 the height, scale, massing and relationships between buildings;
\u2022 views, vistas and landmarks;
\u2022 the scale and proportions of buildings.<\/li>
neighbourhood’ areas of 12m eaves heights and ‘suburbs’ of 9m eaves heights. Not 32m
eaves.<\/li>
and Development Management Policies Document, 2015. Policy CS5 requires all
developments to \u2018reinforce local distinctiveness and complement the attractive
characteristics of the Borough\u2019. Policy DM9 requires development proposals to be
compatible with local character and to relate well to existing townscape and wider
landscape whilst Policy DM10 requires the distinctiveness of an area to be respected,
maintained or enhanced through such essential elements as scale, layout, height, form
and massing.<\/li>
Efficient Use of Land \u2013 Optimising Housing Delivery\u201d agreed by the Council\u2019s Licensing and
Planning Policy Committee in May 2018. This was intended to introduce a more flexible
approach to policies DM11 (Housing Density) and DM13 (Building Heights) in order to
attribute greater weight towards the need to deliver new additional homes. It is clear from
the minutes of that Committee meeting that this was not intended to allow higher density
or taller schemes regardless of their setting or context: \u2018Concern was expressed that
implementation of the proposals could result in over development, however it was noted
that policies already in place would act as further checks and balances to mitigate the
possibility.\u2019 The appellant\u2019s Statement of Case places heavy reliance on giving less weight
to policies DM11 and DM13 but it is unclear whether a statutory development plan can
have its adopted policies DM11 and DM13 changed in this manner with no formal public
consultation or statutory process.<\/li>
important caveat to any increased flexibility in the use of policies DM11 and DM13 was
\u2018whilst responding to the Borough\u2019s visual character and appearance\u2019 and \u2018subject to
conformity with other relevant policies.\u2019 The report further states that potential locations
for higher buildings and densities \u201cinclude town centres, sites in proximity to railway
stations and sites located along transport corridors\u201d. It is clear that the application site is
not located within one of the above potential locations for higher buildings and it is
equally clear that development of the height proposed conflicts with the prevailing
townscape and pattern of development within and around the site. It would introduce a
dominating and overbearing built form which would be harmful to the visual amenities of
the surrounding area.<\/li>
the scheme is located in an area which would fall within the exceptions to the density
criteria cited in Policy DM11. The reference under the second bullet point of the policy to
sites that enjoy good access to services, facilities and amenities is clearly intended, as
made clear by the explanatory text in paragraph 3.28 of the Development Management
Policies document, to refer to the likes of Epsom town centre, Ewell village and other
larger local centres. Not as the text makes clear to the Borough\u2019s predominantly
residential areas which are suburban in character and tend to have lower housing
densities. This is also the case with the third bullet point of Policy DM11 when referring
to surrounding townscape having capacity to accommodate higher density developments.
This is clearly aimed at the aforementioned centres not suburban residential areas and
informed by the Borough-wide Environmental Character Study according to paragraph
3.28. This study emphasises the adjacent residential areas\u2019 high townscape sensitivity
which affords only limited accommodation of change. Certainly not endorsing capacity for
intensive high-rise development as proposed by the appellant.<\/li>
paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, the policies that have been relied upon by the Council in its
decision are in an adopted development plan, are subject to the statutory S.38(6)
requirement and are in line with the policies in the NPPF, especially those relating to good
design. They are therefore not out of date and they do not, of themselves, interfere with
the presumption in favour of sustainable development for the provision of housing.
Rather they ensure that any housing or other development that is delivered is well
designed and respects the character of its surroundings.<\/li>
developments to be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment, as well as policies
DM9 and DM10 of the Council\u2019s Development Management Policies Document 2015 and
policy CS5 of the Council\u2019s Core Strategy 2007, which together seek high quality and
inclusive design which reinforces local distinctiveness. Planning permission should only be
granted for proposals which make a positive contribution to the Borough\u2019s appearance in
regard to compatibility with local character and the relationship to the existing townscape
and prevailing development typology of the surrounding area. The proposed buildings
with their architectural detailing, scale and massing and siting within the plot is in stark
contrast to the established character and distinctiveness of the local area.<\/li>
following public consultation and informed by pre-application discussions. There was a
significant public backlash to the original proposals which resulted in amendments to the
scheme. It is also clear that there is no public support for the appeal scheme as now
presented. The appeal scheme, however, must be considered on its merits and not by
reference to the degree of change from previous iterations.<\/li>
in suburban Epsom is by far the highest density and tallest of any of the Guild Living
schemes being sought by the appellant. The other schemes in Walton on Thames,
Uxbridge and Bath are all in City\/Town centre locations. The Epsom scheme equates at
237 dwellings per hectare compared to 219 d\/ha in Walton, 195 d\/ha in Uxbridge and 158
d\/ha in Bath according to information submitted by the appellants to the Walton Public
Inquiry. Given that the prevailing density of the adjacent residential area is nearer to 20
d\/ha we question how a scheme that is well over 11 times the prevailing density can,
notwithstanding the need to make efficient use of land, be considered in any reasonable
sense to comply with paragraph 122 d) of the NPPF namely the desirability of maintaining
an area\u2019s prevailing character and setting.<\/li>
of mature landscaping give a misleading impression of the visual appearance and impact
of such a massive scheme upon the surrounding area. None of the visuals shows the
impact from the residential area to the west showing the entire elevation of the western
block. Residents of Digdens Rise and Hylands Road have advised our Societies that nobody
representing either the appellants or officers from the Council have visited their
properties to gauge the impact of the development. It is respectfully suggested that the
Inspector should arrange to view the development from the rear of Digdens Rise
properties and householders there will be pleased to facilitate such a site visit.<\/li>
It is also the design and use of materials that is alien to the suburban brick and tile
townscape of the Woodcote area of Epsom.<\/li>
local policies concerned with respecting local character, design and appearance.
Reason for refusal 2
The siting of the development leaves insufficient landscaping opportunities to the frontage
of Woodcote Green Road and along the south-western boundary with neighbouring
residential property to mitigate the impact of the proposed development, presenting an
over-developed and hard edge to the appearance to the development, which would cause
harm to the character and appearance of the area. Causing harm to the character and
appearance of the area fails to comply with Policy DM5 of the Development Management
Policies Document (2015) and the NPPF (2019).<\/li>
Green Road and 4 storeys at the southern end of the East Block does little to minimise the
massing and bulk of the scheme as seen from the Millennium Green and public views
along Woodcote Green Road. This is because the West Block would be some 10m nearer
the Woodcote Green Road frontage than the existing Woodcote Lodge and would be 5
storeys compared to the existing 2\u00bd storeys of Woodcote Lodge. Similarly, the East Block
whilst remaining at 4 storeys would be between 5m and 12m nearer the Woodcote Green
Road frontage than the existing Rowan House, minimising the scope for effective
boundary landscaping and urbanising the street scene in this sensitive location opposite
the Millennium Green which is currently an oasis of calm much valued by the local
community, including hospital workers.<\/li>
screen landscaping of around 5m width would be provided along this sensitive southwestern residential boundary to offset and reduce harm to residential amenity. Minimal
planting is proposed which is considered totally unacceptable in terms of separating the
impact of the development from surrounding dwellings but also in providing an
appropriate level of amenity for the prospective residents of the scheme. Widening the
landscaping along this boundary and then punctuating it with parking spaces would not
be an acceptable solution. It is clear from the statement submitted on behalf of the
residents of 40 Woodcote Green Road that they are deeply concerned about the
inadequate landscaping and the proximity of such a massive development to their
property.<\/li>
of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the National Design Guide (Oct 2019)
and to policies CS5 (Conserving and Enhancing the Quality of the Built Environment), DM5
(Trees and Landscape), DM9 (Townscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) and DM10
(Design Requirements for New Developments).
Reason for refusal 3
The proposed development by reason of its height, massing and design would adversely
impact on the neighbouring amenities of the occupiers at 40 and 46 Woodcote Green
Road, by means of overbearing, loss of privacy and loss of outlook, failing to comply with
Policy DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).<\/li>
projecting 10m forward of their building line and within 10m of their flank boundary. This
would result in loss of outlook at the front and overlooking of the rear lounge and garden
from the proposed flank bedroom windows and balconies.<\/li>
bedroom windows overlooking the front garden and approach to 40 Woodcote Green
Road as if that is of minor consequence. Similarly, it states that only a single unit per floor
(ie 4 units in total) would overlook the rear of the property and rear garden. This would
not be a marginal impact; it would result in a severe loss of amenity to the current
occupiers. This concern is admirably conveyed in the statement submitted on behalf of
the residents of 40 Woodcote Green Road.<\/li>
between 40 Woodcote Green Road and the proposed West Block by some 5 metres over
the existing situation justifies an increase in height from 3 storeys to 5 storeys. This is not
credible. Not only would the proposed building be much higher and considerably larger it
would have flank windows which the existing building does not have. The building would
be visually obtrusive and give rise to overlooking and the perception of being overlooked.<\/li>
the positioning of the main access road adjacent to the flank boundary of the property.
This road would accommodate all cars and servicing vehicles visiting the development and
between this access road and the neighbouring occupiers would be 16 parking spaces
hard up against the flank boundary fence. These spaces are mainly intended as short- term
parking for visitors and it is considered that such an arrangement is likely to result in
significant harm to the enjoyment of the rear garden and therefore on the living
conditions of the occupiers.<\/li>
of outlook and visual intrusion from looking directly across from the rear living rooms to
the 9 storey element which would only be about 45m away. This would result in
overlooking, a loss of privacy and an increased perception of overlooking.<\/li>
Whilst their rear living room windows would be some 25m -35m from the 4-storey key
worker elevation and some 40m-50m from the 9-storey element, there is considered to
be a serious risk of overlooking from the proposed unit windows and balconies together
with the loss of residential amenity from loss of outlook and visual intrusion from the
overbearing and oppressive impact arising from the scale and massing of the western
block. The level of overlooking is likely to be exacerbated by the single aspect nature of
many of the proposed units, the sheer number and extent of windows adorning the
elevations and the use of full height glazing. Existing residents\u2019 expectation of privacy
would be seriously compromised by the appeal scheme.<\/li>
erection of a 4-storey high site accommodation block that would provide a canteen,
toilets, showers, messroom and offices for an extended period whilst building works are
undertaken. This is proposed to be erected immediately adjacent to the rear boundary
fence of 14-20 Digdens Rise. The Arboricultural Assessment also proposes the felling of 3
boundary trees in this location. It is considered wholly unsuitable for this site construction
block to be erected in a position which would be visually obtrusive and result in a serious
loss of residential amenity to the nearby occupiers. This is another example of the total
disregard by the appellant for neighbouring residents\u2019 amenity, similar to undertaking
partial demolition of existing buildings on the site and then leaving a semi-derelict site
until the outcome of this appeal is known.
Reason for refusal 4
In the absence of a completed legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure an affordable housing contribution, the
applicant has failed to comply with Policy CS9 (Affordable Housing and meeting Housing
Needs) of the Core Strategy (2007) and the NPPF (2019).<\/li>
of affordable housing. There is an acute shortage of unconstrained land available to meet
identified priority needs in Epsom and Ewell Borough. This includes a minimum of 40%
affordable housing. In not providing the required level of affordable housing we contend
that the appeal scheme fails to make efficient use of land as required by Policy CS5. By
resulting in an over-concentration of a type of housing which does not meet priority
housing needs it is also considered that the benefit of the additional housing is overstated. Re-provision of key worker housing should similarly only be given very limited
weight as this results in no net gain over the previous position.<\/li>
appellant\u2019s Statement of Case is exaggerated as this would apply equally to any
development coming forward on the site.<\/li>
would result in jobs being displaced from elsewhere. Being more orientated towards a
self-contained community for elderly and vulnerable residents it is also likely to generate
much lower expenditure in Epsom town centre and other local centres compared to a
conventional housing development.
Officer Report and Appellant\u2019s Statement of Case<\/li>
rigorously assess the merits of the scheme within the Council\u2019s Planning Officer report to
Committee, see Appendix (p10) for document (edited for this submission) which was sent
to Planning Committee members and officers prior to the Committee meeting. The
appellant\u2019s Statement of Case in numerous places refers to the Officer report as
supporting the assertion they wish to make and in many cases this is misleading. For
example, in paragraph 6.26 of the Statement of Case the appellants assert that \u2018Paragraph
13.8 of the Committee Report confirms that the Appeal Scheme \u201cintegrate[s] high-quality
landscaping, green roofs and planted window boxes, to help the buildings integrate into
their surroundings. As a result of mitigation through design, impact on many of the
surrounding townscape and visual receptors would be none or negligible\u201d. This reference
in the Committee report is merely repeating what the appellant\u2019s own Heritage
Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment report says on the matter. It is highly misleading
to present this as if this is what the Planning Officer considers the situation to be.<\/li>
(Meeting Local Housing Needs) in: a) not resulting in an over-provision of the particular
type of accommodation and b) being flexible to readily convert to other uses in the event
the need for the particular use declines. The Officer report concluded that officers did not
have the expertise to analyse the need \u2013 so just accepted the appellant\u2019s findings and did
not object to the fact that according to Surrey County Council\u2019s Adult Social Care response
the proposal equated to approximately 98 units above the requirement in accordance
with the SHMA update. It is our contention that the proposal would result in an overprovision of specialist elderly extra care accommodation, especially in the context of
limited land availability and an outstanding priority need for 2-4 bed C3 housing, 40% of
which should be affordable. The proposal accordingly must surely fail to comply with the
second bullet point criteria of Policy DM21.<\/li>
accommodation to be designed to be readily convertible to other uses, the appellant\u2019s
Statement of Case in paragraph 5.8 claims that \u2018the bulk of the accommodation is selfcontained residential accommodation that could readily be used for alternative, non-age
restricted use, in the unlikely event that a development of this nature is no longer needed
in the future.\u2019 The Officer report acknowledges that the 38 Guild Care Residences and
Suites would not meet minimum space standards and these units would not therefore be
readily convertible to other C3 residential use. Of the self-contained units referred to in
the appellant\u2019s Statement of Case a number do not have access to any private amenity
space and of those that do many have very limited private external space. If these units
were to convert to C3 use in the future they would fail to meet the minimum housing
standards of DM12 regarding private, usable and functional amenity space. The limited
private car parking that is only available through the automatic parking system via a
concierge service would also be a significant deterrent in allowing alternative residential
uses. Accordingly, we contend that the proposal also fails to meet the third criteria of
Policy DM21.
Changing government agenda: good design and building back better<\/li>
placemaking, local distinctiveness and quality of design, evidenced most recently by its
consultation on the National Model Design Code which sets out helpful parameters
regarding density and building heights which are considerably less than presented in this
scheme.<\/li>
Parliament (16\/12\/20) that sound planning decisions are not about housing numbers
alone.<\/li>
dismiss the appeal relating to 140 & 142 Ruxley Lane, West Ewell KT19 9JS (Ref:
APP\/P3610\/W\/20\/3263842) notwithstanding the application of NPPF paragraph 11 d) (ii),
the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the engagement of the \u2018tilted
balance\u2019. The Inspector nonetheless decided that development proposed (the erection of
20 flats within two blocks) would be out of proportion with adjacent dwellings and with
the character and appearance of the street scene. Essentially the scale of the
development was at issue (paragraph 8), albeit of a different (and considerably smaller)
scale to the Guild Living appellant\u2019s scheme. By reason of its scale, in the Inspector\u2019s view,
the proposed development would give rise to an overbearing relationship with both
adjacent buildings. The Inspector considered that the site would appear over developed
and would be in conflict with the suburban pattern of development. The Inspector
concluded that overall, the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance
of the area by the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. We have set out
above our similar concerns in the commentary on the Planning Committee\u2019s reasons for
refusal in the instant case.<\/li>
much-reduced height default threshold definition for tall buildings, now at 6 storeys or 18
metres reportedly responding to calls for an approach more sensitive to local context. This
provides strong persuasive arguments to resist unacceptably tall buildings here, in a lowrise borough just beyond the limits of outer London, where no tradition of \u2018building tall\u2019
exists.<\/li>
an apparent disregard of the height policies in the current Local Plan in favour of an
informal policy change of dubious validity by the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee
in May 2018 has been unduly relied upon and has led, we suggest, to inappropriate
encouragement to developers to build higher and higher.<\/li>
desire to resist the proliferation of tall buildings in the Borough and prevent the
consequent erosion of local character and distinctiveness. We know that our concerns
about unacceptably tall buildings are shared by local residents, their associations and
societies, pressure groups and a local Neighbourhood Forum. On their behalf we seek to
enable and support our Council\u2019s ability to take forward the 6 key principles1
into the emerging draft Local Plan.
1 https:\/\/www.epsom-ewell-localplan.co.uk\/news-and-updates.html#6principles
Conclusion<\/li>
acceptable building heights for new development. It is our joint view that the scheme is
insensitive to local context and constitutes a brutal intervention that erodes local
character and distinctiveness, is contrary to key local policies and to the government\u2019s
commitment to good design and building back better.<\/li>
appearance of the area and to neighbouring residential amenity that would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF
taken as a whole. We ask for the appeal to be dismissed.
1 June 2021, revised and updated 7 June 2021
Following permission from the Planning Inspectorate on 28 May 2021 to extend the deadline
for representations to 8 June 2021 due to the late availability to interested parties of the
appellant\u2019s Statement of Claim, we reserve the right to submit further representations by the
extended deadline. We are grateful to the Inspectorate for allowing us this further time.
Margaret Hollins Fred Mowbray
Chair, Epsom Civic Society Chair, Woodcote (Epsom) Residents\u2019 Society
47 The Parade
Epsom John Mumford
Surrey Committee Member, W(E)Residents\u2019 Society
KT18 5DU Committee Member, Epsom Civic Society
chair@epsomcivicsociety.org.uk
https:\/\/epsomcivicsociety.org.uk\/
APPENDIX
Commentary highlighting factual inaccuracies and misleading assertions in Planning Officer
Report on 19\/01722\/FUL \u2013 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee 18 November 2020
Using the same headings and paragraphs of the officer report
2 Summary
2.4 The variety of extra-care accommodation reduces pressure on local hospitals, GPs and
emergency centres. Not only does extra-care accommodation provide a positive health
influence on all senior residents, it also directly impacts on and improves a range of social
factors, such as loneliness and isolation.
Response:
There is a concern amongst local Health partners that the building of more residential and
nursing care homes in an area may lead to an \u201cinflux\u201d of new patients from those nearby areas
with additional and acute health needs that actually create additional strain on the local
health system.
2.6 Surrey County Council (SCC) Adult Social Care recognises that further extra-care
accommodation is warranted. The proposal contributes towards the need for specialist
retirement housing in the Borough. It seeks 344 care units, equating to approximately 96 units
above the minimum need of 248 units within the Borough (in accordance with the SHMA
Update).
Response:
This is inconsistent with paragraphs 11.14-11.15 of the report. If allowance is made for
recently commenced schemes and another submitted extra-care scheme on the former police
station site in this borough there could be an over-provision of 269 extra care units. If
allowance is made for the Legal and General scheme being currently marketed at nearby
Kingswood then there is an additional 280 extra care units to take into account within the 5
mile catchment area referred to by the applicant in their market assessment of competing
schemes. Moreover Surrey Count Council\u2019s Commissioning Statement \u2013 Accommodation with
care, residential & nursing care for older people Epsom & Ewell Borough April 2019 throws
doubt on presenting clear demand figures for residential and nursing care in any area when
local demand figures need to take into account Surrey County Council\u2019s strategic direction to
maximise the impact of preventative services, provide additional support to carers and to
diversify the range of community support on offer, so that people are able to live in their own
homes for longer. \u2018These measures mean that a link between demographics and residential
and nursing care provision should not be assumed.\u2019
2.7 In line with the above, the estimate of future demand is much more conservative than
that presented in the Applicant\u2019s Planning Need Assessment. It is acknowledged that people
who do not currently live within the Borough may choose to move into Epsom, to live within
this scheme, subject to planning permission being granted. This is not detrimental to the
consideration of this application.
Response:
The applicant\u2019s planning need assessment report by Carterwood refers to their usual 10 mile
catchment for extra care assessment. The applicant\u2019s viability assessment report by Savills
states that \u2018occupants of such schemes frequently come from long distances\u2019 and that \u2018the
number of buyers in this sector at any one time is limited, and sales rates for these types of
developments is typically slow\u2019. This is borne out by the Churchill retirement scheme in Ashtead
which 3\u00bdyears after launch is still only 50% sold. Given the huge outstanding housing need in
this borough it cannot be right to claim that providing for the needs of residents elsewhere is
not detrimental to the consideration of this scheme. The priority should surely be to provide
types of housing actually required by local people in this borough and not accommodating the
needs of people from a wide number of surrounding borough and district councils.
2.11 The proposal has been designed to respond to its immediate surroundings, including
local views. This proposal is considered to represent a relatively modest increase in height in
comparison to existing buildings at Epsom General Hospital (which are up to eight storeys in
height). The proposal seeks taller elements towards the rear of the Site, stepping down
towards boundaries with residential dwellings, in response to the surrounding heritage and
townscape context, to mitigate adverse impacts on surrounding views and neighbouring
amenity. The Local Planning Authority\u2019s Design and Conservation Officer has confirmed that
the proposal would lead to \u201cless than substantial harm\u201d to the significance of designated
heritage assets.
Response:
This is patently untrue in terms of height levels and impact on local townscape. It is even
contradicted within the same report at Paragraph 3.3 which states that \u2018The tallest building is
positioned immediately to the north and is six storeys in height, with roof plant structures.\u2019
The prevailing height across the hospital site is 5 storeys or less ie up to 20 metres in height.
The proposal incorporating a 9 storey scale of development over an expanse of some 220
metres length of elevations means that the predominant height is 34 metres or with roof plant
over 36 metres in height. The difference between the majority of existing hospital buildings
and the proposal is 4 storeys or 14 metres.
The so called stepping down approach involves replacing the existing 3 storey Woodcote
Lodge adjacent to the 2 storey scale dwellings on Woodcote Green Road with a 5 storey
element of the West Block and some 10 metres forward of the existing building line.
To assert that this scale of development represents a modest increase in height is clearly a
total nonsense.
The reference to the impact on heritage assets is misleading because the properties most
directly affected by the proposal are the 2 storey dwellings surrounding the site to the southwest and west which are non-heritage assets. Significant harm would be caused to these
dwellings because of the excessive scale and siting of the development resulting in a serious
loss of amenity.
Site description
3.7 The Site is considered a highly sustainable location, located approximately 1km from
Epsom train station (approximately a 15 minute walk).
Response:
This is completely incorrect the site is some 1.6 km from the station and for an elderly person
would be at least a 25 minute walk. This is not a highly sustainable location which is why retail
and leisure facilities in Epsom town centre are having to be replicated within the development
site.
4.8 Drop off\/collection for the nursery provided as part of the scheme will be accessed via the
main access where parking bays are provided with vehicles departing via the separate egress.
Response:
This will result in significant levels of noise, disturbance and fumes to the neighbouring
residential occupiers at 40 Woodcote Green Road. The parking spaces are immediately
adjacent to the flank boundary fence and within 4 metres of the side kitchen glazed door and
window of that property. There should be a substantial landscaping buffer between a major
access and parking arrangements such as this and neighbouring residential occupiers. There
is none.
9 Principle of development
9.18 The tilted balance of paragraph 11d cannot be disapplied due to the proposed use class
of development.
Response:
This is not considered correct. As set out in paragraph 11d of the NPPF, it is necessary to
ascertain whether there are any up-to-date relevant policies in the development plan, which
are most important for determination of the application. It has now been established in case
law (Paul Newman New Homes Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2637) that even if there was only
a single policy relevant to the determination of the proposal that was up-to-date, in line with
paragraph 213 of the NPPF, this is sufficient for the \u2018tilted balance\u2019 not to be engaged, i.e. a
\u2018flat balance\u2019 applies. Furthermore, a clarification in association with the term \u2018relevant\u2019 was
offered, meaning \u2018no more than some real role in the determination\u2019.
Policies DM9 and DM10 relevant to the consideration of this application are considered to be
consistent with the NPPF and therefore up to date.
In the absence of a tilted balance, it is considered that the significant identified harm clearly
and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies in the
development plan and the NPPF taken as a whole.
11 Provision\/Need of accommodation for older people
11.6 Policy DM21 sets out that planning permission will be granted for specialised forms of
residential accommodation, subject to the following requirements being met: \u2022 That the
application documentation includes clear and robust evidence that demonstrates that there
is a need for the new accommodation; \u2022 The delivery of the new accommodation does not
result in an overprovision of that particular type of accommodation; and \u2022 The design of the
proposal is demonstrated as being sufficiently flexible to readily accommodate conversion to
other appropriate uses, either residential or non-residential, in the event that the need for
the permitted use declines.
Response:
The criteria under Policy DM21 are not met. The proposal would result in an over-provision of
this kind of accommodation give the provision elsewhere and existing vacancy rates. The
design is not flexible to allow conversion to other uses, namely conventional C3 residential.
The 38 Guild Care Residences and Suites do not meet minimum space standards, most units
do not meet private amenity space standards and the parking provision is less than half the
minimum residential standard with the majority of spaces only accessible via a concierge
because of the proposed Automatic Parking System. The scheme as proposed is accordingly
anything but flexible for other uses.
11.22 Officers do not have the expertise to analyse markets in health and social care or the
data insight into care homes, older people\u2019s housing and specialist care. Carterwood,
regulated by the RICS, specialises in this field and has put forward its need assessment, to
support this application. Officers cannot analyse the findings, so this report is accepted.
Response:
This is a wholly unacceptable stance and demonstrates a complete lack of scrutiny. The
applicant\u2019s consultant unsurprisingly puts the brightest gloss on the case but this is at odds
with the advice from Surrey County Council (see response to Para 2.6 above).
Design and Heritage
12.22 The existing hospital buildings rise to 29.83 metres in height, to the tip of the rooftop
plant structures. The proposed scheme\u2019s tallest elements will be approximately 3 metres
taller than the hospital buildings.
Response:
This follows on from the response comments on Para 2.11 above. This statement totally
underplays the height difference by suggesting it is less than half of what it would actually be.
The proposed scheme\u2019s tallest element within the West Block, including plant would be 6.5m
higher at 36.3 metres in height and the equivalent in the East Block would be 5.61 metres
higher.
12.29 The largest block on the Site is the West building, which is an imposing building. The
southern elevation is lower at 4 and 5 storeys, which is more sensitive to the parkland to the
south, but there is quite a strong dislocation of the elevation scale between this and 40
Woodcote Green Road.
Response:
This admission that 5 storeys doesn\u2019t relate to the 2 storey scale of the adjacent dwelling (and
10 metres forward of the building line) begs the question how the officer conclusion can
possibly be that \u2018the scheme is considered appropriate and acceptable, complying with policies
CS5, DM8 and DM9.
12.30 Various material finishes are proposed, mostly comprising brick and aluminium rain
screen. The variation of material finishes has the advantage of providing variety of intent,
without being too excessive, but the aluminium may not be an entirely complimentary finish
to the building. There is the danger that the cool finish of the aluminium may look at odds
with the warm finish of the brick and the softening effect of the proposed planting. To ensure
an appropriate material palette, a materials condition is proposed, subject to planning
permission being granted. The Officer sets out that generally the approach of using brick is
accepted and again details should be secured by condition, should planning permission be
granted.
12.31 Further detail is required of the drop off entrance, including details of doors, glazing
and soffit sections. The car park entrance is considered harsh and industrial in appearance.
Response:
This demonstrates that there have been no serious negotiations with the applicant or
willingness on the part of the applicant to amend the scheme to address the legitimate
concerns raised by residents and local representative bodies for example on relatively simple
matters such as the design and appearance of the scheme. The same applicants were required
to significantly amend their schemes elsewhere in the country, including the scale and massing
and reduction in ancillary uses, but no such amendments have been sought here.
12.34 The Local Planning Authority has a high level of assessed housing need, but lacks a
sufficient supply of available, developable and deliverable housing sites to fully meet this
need. As such, there is a requirement to optimise all sites and this Site is considered
appropriate for development.
Response:
This highlights how important it is to provide housing that actually meets priority housing
needs. Since the SHMA (2016) was published, the NPPF was revised in 2019 to include the
National Standardised Methodology for the calculation of the Local Housing Need figures. For
Epsom this figure is currently at 579 homes per annum. On the basis of the qualitative
information within the SHMA (2016) applying 9.56% to the housing need figure would give the
Council an estimated need figure of 55 units for older people accommodation per annum.
From these figures it is clear that at 90.44% (524 units) of all needed residential
accommodation there is an overwhelming and significantly higher annual need for C3
accommodation (other than elderly accommodation) in comparison with a modest need for
older people accommodation.
It is also a wasteful use of scarce housing land to provide extensive ancillary uses such as
restaurants, cafes, retail, leisure and nursery.
14 Affordable housing
14.16 In summary, the proposal has been subject to viability testing and Officers have taken
the professional advice of BPS Surveyors. Whilst the scheme is not policy compliant, it does
seek the re-provision of key worker units and provides an on-site affordable housing offer,
which is a public benefit and should be considered positively.
Response:
The affordable housing offer is minimal equating at 12% when the policy requires a minimum
of 40%. This should not be considered positively. The viability of the scheme is clearly affected
by the provision of so much ancillary accommodation and expensive automatic parking
arrangements. A conventional C3 housing scheme should be able to provide a much higher
land policy compliant level of affordable housing.
16 Ancillary uses
16.10The accompanying documentation, including the Planning Statement, does not provide
specific reference to the proposed retail provision at the Site.
16.12 SCC Highways formally commented on this element of the scheme and recommends a
condition, should planning permission be granted, which ensures that the proposed retail unit
excludes the sale of food.
16.13 Officers consider that the proposed retail provision is ancillary to the main scheme.
Given the modest size of this and the condition proposed by SCC Highways, the retail
provision is not considered to adversely impact the existing retail offering at the adjacent
hospital. A condition is proposed, should planning permission be granted, which controls
opening times for trade or business, in order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to
prevent nuisance arising.
Response:
We understand that the applicant is negotiating to relocate the existing WHS Smith and M&S
into the retail units. Any suggestion of restricting the retail provision by planning condition is
unlikely to be successful because of the flexibilities in the new commercial, business and service
Use Class E recently introduced by the Government. The provision of these facilities will do
nothing to help the recovery of Epsom town centre by discouraging residents from visiting
Epsom and equally is likely to encourage passing motorists and surrounding residents to
undertake top up shopping.
16.17 The principle of a nursery in this locality, adjacent to the hospital and residential
properties, to provide childcare to NHS workers and local residents is considered to be
acceptable in principle, as long as it does not adversely impact neighbouring properties in
terms of noise or disturbance and highways considerations are deemed acceptable.
Response:
As set out in the response to Paragraph 4.8 above the proposal would have a significant
adverse impact on 40 Woodcote Green Road. These occupiers will also suffer serious noise and
disturbance and loss of amenity from the positioning of the main access road adjacent to the
flank boundary of the property. This road would accommodate all cars and servicing vehicles
visiting the development and between this access road and the neighbouring occupiers would
be 16 parking spaces hard up against the flank boundary fence. These spaces are mainly
intended in connection with the proposed child care nursery or as overspill for visitors and staff
and it is considered that such an arrangement is likely to result in significant harm to the
enjoyment of the rear garden and therefore on the living conditions of the occupiers.
17.15 The Local Planning Authority\u2019s Tree Officer commented on this application 03.09.2020.
The response sets out:
17.16 The fundamental objection is loss of T36, T2, and G46 and the encroachment of the
buildings\/hard surfacing into the root protection areas of T15, T26, T29 and T30. The impacts
will cause tree damage and harm to the amenity of the treescape.
17.17 A further fundamental objection is on the lack of landscape space. On the side of the
development facing Woodcote Green Road, the proposal erodes the frontage tree cover and
then fails to provide adequate space for a sufficient landscape buffer fronting the Site. The
environs of Woodcote Green is attractive (still retains semi-rural character) and there needs
to be sufficient width of a landscape buffer to the Site to integrate with the special landscape
character of the pond and Woodcote Millennium Green.
17.18 Specimen large canopy (forest size) trees would be highly desirable on this frontage to
benefit community and environmental health as well as helping to mitigate climate change.
The forest size trees will need adequate room for full canopy expansion, so the buffer needs
to be at least 10m in width. Given space for development, the trees will help mitigate the
building mass at the more macro scale. Additional soft landscape understory should be
provided to help soften the development in the street scene.
17.30 In summary, whilst the proposal would result in tree loss, the scheme would seek a
greater number of new trees, which would be managed appropriately through a LEMP. The
proposed landscaping entwines the proposed buildings, character areas and the Woodcote
Millennium Green, creating a sense of place. In conjunction with the public benefits of this
proposal, including a contribution for the ongoing maintenance of the Woodcote Millennium
Green, the proposal is considered acceptable, complying with policy DM5.
Response:
In a scheme of this magnitude it could reasonably be expected that significant screen
landscaping of around 3m-5m width would be provided along the sensitive western residential
boundary to offset and reduce harm to residential amenity. Minimal planting is proposed
which is considered totally unacceptable in terms of separating the impact of the development
from surrounding dwellings but also in providing an appropriate level of amenity for the
prospective residents of the scheme.
Similarly, the Tree Officer\u2019s advice is strongly endorsed that there should be a minimum 10m
landscape buffer on the sensitive Woodcote Green Road frontage opposite the Millennium
Green. What is proposed is a minimal landscaping strip at back of footpath because of the
bringing forward of the new blocks right up to the road frontage and totally disregarding the
established building line.
Given the above circumstances, and the disregard of the Tree Officer\u2019s advice, it is clearly
ridiculous to assert that the landscaping proposals comply with Policy DM5.
18 Neighbouring Amenity
18.5 40 Woodcote Green Road is to the west of the Site and is a two-storey detached
property. The proposed building, forming part of the west building, is five storeys in height.
The applicant sets out that this will not face habitable rooms within 40 Woodcote Green Road,
so there should be no significant impact on the privacy at this neighbouring dwelling. The
proposed building is angled away from the garden of this property, which serves to mitigate
any impact on the privacy of the garden.
Response:
This is one of the most contentious assertions and considered to be seriously misleading and
in error. There are habitable rooms on the flank elevation, namely a kitchen\/dining area with
a glazed door and window on the flank elevation. The side of this dwelling and the immediate
rear garden would be directly overlooked by the 5 storey elevation of the West Block
incorporating flats with balconies facing across to the flank elevation of the house and rear
garden within about 10 metres of the property curtilage. The angling away of the 9 storey
element doesn\u2019t occur until about 10 metres down the rear garden so the assertion that this
would have no significant impact on privacy is nonsense. The proximity, scale and orientation
of West Block to the residential occupiers of 40 Woodcote Green Road would result in a very
serious level of overlooking, loss of privacy and consequently loss of amenity. Combined with
the aforementioned adverse impact from the access road and parking arrangements
(response to Paragraph 16.17 above) there would be a significant loss of amenity to the
residential occupiers of Woodcote Green Road. Drawing \u2018Elevation 4-4\u2019 and Section D-D
clearly show the impact on the residential flank boundary of this huge facade. So serious is
this loss of amenity that it is considered that for this reason alone the application should be
refused.
18.13 The results of the technical assessments indicate that the majority of windows and
rooms within the neighbouring buildings that were tested would satisfy Building Research
Establishment (BRE) guidelines. It is anticipated that the proposed development will result in
effects beyond suggested guideline levels on a small number of isolated areas, including 46
Woodcote Green Road. 18.16 In summary, the Applicant\u2019s consultant set out that the
proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of daylight, sunlight and
overshadowing, despite a small number of isolated transgressions, which are not uncommon
with increased development levels on a site of this nature.
Response:
This is considered to be complacent. It is only because of the height of buildings and lack of
separation distances that the BRE guidelines are breached.
19 Highways and parking
19.12 SCC Highways approved the level of parking proposed for the development and have
stated that the existing parking restrictions in place in the surrounding area would avoid any
issues with illegal parking in streets around the Site.
19.13 SCC Highways has not proposed to restrict residents of this scheme from applying for
resident parking permits as the level of parking proposed at this development is considered
sufficient. In any event, the nearest residents parking zone is Woodcote Side, which is
approximately 600 metres from the Site and significantly more than the typical distance
people would be prepared to walk to park a vehicle.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
There is serious concern that with such low levels of parking provision on site and the concierge system for utilising the Automatic Parking System visitors will be likely to try and park in surrounding streets. The retail and other ancillary facilities may also attract additional parking which if unable to be accommodated on site will be displaced onto surrounding streets. There is also the loss of hospital staff parking with no guarantee that the Multi-Storey Car Park application will be permitted. The inability of the LPA to condition any permission to the provision of the MSCP (Para 19.32 of the officer report) is a serious shortcoming. This impact of displaced car parking on residential amenity is a matter which the LPA needs to seriously address as it did with the refusal of the 20-22 Dorking Road proposal. The application cannot patently comply with policies CS16, DM36 or DM37.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"