A Burnham-On-Sea care home has won an appeal to overturn a decision by Somerset Council rejecting its plans to build eleven new apartments.
The Planning Inspectorate’s inspector, PJ Staddon, says in his report on the application that the three main issues considered were the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; secondly, the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, with specific regard to light, outlook and visual impact; and, thirdly, whether the proposed development would include adequate parking.
The report states: “Beaufort Park is a care home and retirement living complex located within the built up area of Burnham-On-Sea. It occupies a large site which spans an area between Rectory Road in the south, and The Grove and Gardenhurst on its north side. The main entrance is from Rectory Road via a drive which leads to parking areas and attractive landscape grounds, which include a number of mature trees.”
“There are a number of buildings within the complex. The main building is Beaufort House, which is an attractive red brick built Victorian property, which has been much altered and substantially extended, including a 3-storey block on its east side. The western part of the site is occupied by a large building, Beaufort Court, which I understand to be retirement living apartments.”
“The eastern part of the complex comprises the appeal site, which is defined by the redline on the site location plan. It is an irregular shaped parcel, which covers the area to the east of Beaufort House, extending up to its boundaries with neighbouring dwellings to the north (No 1a Gardenhurst), east (No 11 Rectory Road, also known as Dalmatian House) and south (Rectory Lodge and No 9 Rectory Road). The appeal site contains some peripherally located garaging, sheds, outbuildings, a 2-storey building which has the appearance of a house (although with multiple entrance doors), a large workshop building with an external staircase giving access to its roofspace, along with a large hard surfaced area between these buildings and Beaufort House.”
“The appeal proposal would clear the existing buildings and structures on the site and introduce an L shaped block of 11 accommodation units. The block would be sited adjacent to the boundaries with its residential neighbours, with the units having inward facing aspects towards a proposed landscaped garden area, and to Beaufort House beyond. The building would be a mix of single and 2-storey elements, with a single storey leg running alongside the site’s southern boundary, and the block adjacent to the eastern boundary being largely 2-storey. Materials would be brickwork walls with some zinc clad elements, along with pitched tiled roofs. The appeal proposal comprised a revised scheme following the Council’s refusal of an earlier application for reasons relating to the proposed design incorporating 2-storey elements and consequential impacts on the amenity of the adjacent properties, and the lack of an ecological assessment.”
“The Council’s first reason for refusal alleges that the scheme would represent over development, that it would not reflect existing character and appearance, and that the ‘contemporary’ design and choice of materials would have a detrimental visual impact.”
“In my assessment, the proposal would not represent overdevelopment. Whilst the overall building floorspace and mass would be somewhat greater than the existing, the single storey element would be low rise and unimposing. The 2-storey element would replace existing built development, which includes a 2-storey building and large workshop. Moreover, the proposal would include a quite sizeable garden area and, when seen in its wider site context, much of the site would remain open, including its landscaped grounds.”
“The surrounding area is primarily residential in character and land use. The area has a mature and attractive suburban feel, with mature trees, hedgerows and gardens all contributing to that character. However, there is a variety of building sizes, styles, layout and ages in the area and, as such, there is not a narrowly defined or distinct character that the development must adhere to.”
“I note the Council’s particular reference to zinc cladding on the 2-storey projections within the scheme, but this material is successfully used in many settings. In any event, its use in the appeal scheme would be quite restrained and confined to features facing the courtyard style sunken garden, such that it will not be prominent in any street scene view.”
“The appellant’s Design and Access Statement explains that the new development is designed to take visual references from Beaufort House, but in a contemporary manner, and to be of a scale that is subservient to the main building and also integrates well with its local setting. Whilst respecting the inevitable subjectivity of judging good design, I am satisfied that the design would be successful in this regard, and that there is nothing that would appear incongruent or out of character in its local context.”
“On this main issue, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not constitute overdevelopment, nor would it be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and I assess the design and scale to be suitable and appropriate in its local context. This means that the requirements of policy D2 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan (adopted in February 2019) (SLP), in terms of promoting high quality and inclusive design, are satisfied.”
“I am satisfied that the appeal proposal will not have any unduly harmful impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring residential properties. I therefore find no conflict with SLP policies D2 and D25 which, amongst other matters, require development proposals to protect and respect residential amenity.”
“The Council’s third reason for refusal alleges that the loss of the existing hardstanding space, that had been used for parking purposes, and the increase in persons living on the site, led to concerns about the adequacy of car parking to serve the needs of those using the site.”
“I have no reason to doubt that the hard surfaced area has been used for parking purposes, but it is not laid out as a formal parking area, and there were no vehicles parked upon it when I visited (there was a minibus parked between the buildings near the eastern site boundary). Although the appeal proposal includes only 3 new parking spaces, the appellant has now demonstrated that the wider Beaufort Park site would include a total of 48 parking spaces (including the 3 proposed spaces within the appeal site).”
“I have not been provided with any evidence from the Council concerning the adequacy of this level of provision for the specialist type of accommodation proposed, nor have I been provided with any evidence of on-street parking or highway safety issues in the surrounding area. When I visited the site, which may not have been at the peak of weekly activity, there was ample parking available within the site, and I did not observe any parking congestion on nearby streets. I have also noted the appellant’s submission that parking is never at capacity on the site and that full staff parking is provided.”
“I am also mindful that the Council’s committee report confirms that, whilst the Highway Authority did not issue a consultation response in this case, it had confirmed that it had objection to the earlier scheme, which was very similar in terms of parking generation and demands. I also note that the Council did not include a parking reason in its refusal of that earlier application.”
“Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to suggest that the level of parking provision would be inadequate and I find no conflict with SLP policy D14, regarding managing the transport impacts of developments.”
“I have noted and considered a range of other matters raised by interested parties, including those relating to sewage, water, boundary wall matters, and views that the development is not needed, as there is suitable accommodation already available.”
A number of planning conditions have been placed on the developer to allow the development to proceed and the planning inspector concludes: “For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development, subject to the conditions set out.”
Somerset Council’s planning meeting on the application last year heard from several residents who spoke out against the scheme. One said the plans represent a “massive, overbearing overdevelopment” and she claimed they represent “a much bigger footprint” that would result in a loss of privacy and extra noise. The development would “destroy the peace and quiet and Rectory Road’s character,” added another. Another resident said at the council meeting that “it is out of keeping with overshadowing, visual domination, and a loss of privacy and disturbance.”
