Second bid to knock down East Devon town house looks likely to go ahead

A second bid to knock down a town house in an East Devon conservation area so it can be redeveloped has been approved.

Plans submitted by Hugh McCormick to turn a house on Marine Parade, in Budleigh Salterton, into four maisonettes continued to face objections even though changes had been made to the proposal since it was previously refused.
In spite of concerns about the loss of a property whose character, it was claimed by some, fitted in with the conservation area, and fears that the proposed parking area wasn’t generous enough, East Devon District Council’s planning committee voted in favour of the scheme.
However, because the council had not made a decision on the plans within the required eight weeks, the applicant had already lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination.
That means East Devon’s approval will be sent to the Inspectorate, which will make the final decision on the scheme.
Ward member Councillor Charlotte Fitzgerald (Liberal Democrat, Budleigh & Raleigh) said she was “most particularly concerned with the access to parking”.
Cllr Fitzgerald said she had concerns about whether the size of the proposed parking garage would fit four modern cars in, and raised worries that Devon County Council’s highways department had seemingly changed its mind on the scheme, now supporting it.
“I can’t see why they’ve changed their view,” she said. “I’m very worried about accepting the parking at face value, and if the committee can’t take a satisfactory view, then perhaps a site visit would be in order.”
However, officers stated that parking spaces had to meet national standards, and noted that the highways department now believed there was enough space provided at the front of the property for cars to be able to turn around and therefore to exit the property by driving forwards.
Previously, the highways team had been concerned about drivers having to reverse out onto Marine Parade, something it objected to.
Furthermore, a proposed dormer window was removed from the plans, with a pair of gables instead, and rear balconies were also removed from initial plans. Windows facing east now serve a bathroom and stairwell, meaning they are nto habitable rooms, reducing the potential for overlooking into the neighbouring property.
And concerns regarding poor internal light to the rear ground floor bedrooms have been overcome by terracing the rear garden and lowering a retaining wall.
Councillor Steve Hunt (Liberal Democrat, Seaton) mourned the “loss of a beautiful villa” and that even though the council’s conservation officer had no objection to the scheme, “I’m not happy as I don’t see what is being maintained in terms of character” in the redevelopment proposal.
“Having windows in the same shape and some render doesn’t make it look Victorian, and that’s a harm to the conservation area, and it’s only providing an extra three dwellings which won’t make a difference in the context of our local plan,” he said.
Two residents also spoke against the plans, reiterating concerns linked to the conservation area.
Chris Boorman said he lived in a neighbouring property and urged the committee to refuse the plans because they “fail to address heritage issues, the conservation area impact, neighbour amenity, land stability and highway safety”.
“With great humility and respect, I’m concerned the committee report underestimates the issues,” he said.
“This is a repeat of the previous dismissed application and the committee says it is a fresh proposal but the concerns are largely unaddressed. This would see the demolition of one of the last intact heritage Victorian villas in the conservation area, apparently merely for profit.”
Fellow resident Robert Wiltshire said that “wise heads prevailed” when the previous application was refused, and subsequently dismissed at appeal.
“I have lived in a neighbouring property for 20 years and during an extensive retrofitting I have found no evidence of any [harmful] materials,” he said.
Mr Wiltshire claimed that suggestions of high levels of asbestos in the properties on the street had “no evidence” backing them up, and that other houses there had been subdivided, meaning that could be appropriate for this property.
But Gavin Spiller, the agent from Avalon Planning and Heritage, said the new application “addresses the concerns of the local community” and that the design had been amended through this new proposal to “take account of the property location in a conservation area and National Landscape”.
“It better assimilates with the surroundings,” he said. “It is a modern interpretation of a historic character with improved sustainability credentials to last for decades,” he said.
“The current property has asbestos, and the front and east is subsiding, and the appearance has a negative impact on the street. Furthermore, none of the technical consultees have raised any objections.”
Councillor Ian Barlow (Independent, Sidmouth Town) said he “completely sympathises” with it “not being good for Budleigh”, but that he could not see a reason backed by planning policy to refuse it.
His motion to approve the plan was supported by a majority of the planning committee. That means the Planning Inspectorate will now make a decision on the plan, noting East Devon’s positive stance on it.