Appeal 6004499

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from former nursing home (Use Class C2) to large HMO comprising 14no. non self-contained rooms and ancillary accommodation ([name]) at [address], [site address] , Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01831/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from former nursing home (Use Class C2) to large HMO ([name]) comprising 12no. non self-contained rooms with ancillary kitchen and communal accommodation together with 2no. self contained flats (Use Class C3) at lower ground floor at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01830/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Appeal Decision 6004498 and 6004499

Applications for costs in respect of [name] and B were made by the appellant against Teignbridge District Council. These applications are the subject of a separate Decision.

As set out above, there are two appeals on adjoining sites which relate to the same former nursing home. Appeal A relates to the eastern half of the building known as [address] and Appeal B relates to the western half of the building known as [site address] . I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two proposals together.

Both appeals were refused for the same reason. Namely that the proposals would fail to provide adequate parking provision and that this would result in a significant increase in on-street parking.

However, during the course of the appeal, the Council indicated that having seen the appellant’s submitted Appeal Transport Statement, they were satisfied that their concerns, and therefore the reason for refusal in both Appeal A and Appeal B had been overcome. Nevertheless, third parties raised objections to the proposal in respect of, amongst other things, parking provision.

Therefore, the main issue for both Appeal A and Appeal B is whether the proposed development would provide sufficient parking provision with particular regard to the availability of on-street parking.

The appeal sites are located within a reasonable walking distance of a railway station and the town centre which provides a wide range of services and facilities. At around 800m from the town centre, the appeal sites are well under the 2km in Manual for Streets (MfS) where it is suggested that walking has the greatest potential to replace short car trips.

However, the surrounding roads are steep and many do not have footways. There are pedestrian paths but these are unlit and have steps. Walking or cycling to the sites from the town would be physically demanding. Together, these are barriers which would prevent some occupiers from choosing to walk or cycle to access services and facilities in the town. The appeal sites are also beyond the industry recommendation of 400m to a bus stop.

Census data1 indicates that of the 5850 residents in an area which includes the appeal sites, 20.5% of those residents travelled to work on foot and 2.2% cycled. Taken together, this indicates to me that the proposals would not be ‘car-free’. Future occupiers of the appeal site would be reliant on the private car and would require a parking space in the vicinity of the appeal sites.

There are no parking standards for houses in multiple occupation (HMO’s) set out in the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 adopted May 2014 (LP) or the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (ELP). The appellant has therefore considered 1 2011 data was used rather than 2021 data which was dismissed due to the impact of the Covid pandemic Appeal Decision 6004498 and 6004499 two scenarios to demonstrate the parking requirement for the appeal proposals. One uses the parking ratios for C3 dwellings set out in the ELP and the other relates to ‘donor site evidence’ which has been collected by the appellant’s transport consultant, from similar sites elsewhere in the country. [name] took the higher of these two, there would be a requirement for 29 spaces using the ELP parking ratios for C3 dwellings, which would be greater than required when the care home was in operation and employed 10 staff.

[name] acknowledge that my site visit at 1800hrs was just a snapshot in time and took place outside termtime and the peak drop off and pick up times for the nursery when short stay parking would be in demand, I did not see the indiscriminate parking on junctions or on bends as described by interested parties, and found there to be a number of spaces available for parking on [address] and on surrounding roads.

In any event, I cannot ignore the evidence of the appellant that a care home, within the same Use Class but operated by another provider, may have employed up to 46 staff and that this would have generated a need for 29 parking spaces, using the industry standard TRICS data. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, this is a realistic fallback position to which I give substantial weight and conclude that the proposals would not result in a significant increase in on-street parking.

Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy S9 of the LP or Policies CC4 and DW3 of the ELP which seek to minimise the negative impacts of transport particularly though appropriate parking provision and prevent unacceptable highway safety impacts.

The appeal site is approximately 100 metres beyond the boundary of the [address] Conservation Area (CA). This distance, together with intervening built development means that the proposals would have a neutral effect on the CA. [name] note that areas within the CA were included in the appellant’s parking beat survey, given my findings above in respect of traffic generation and parking, the appeal proposals would not have any effect on the way in which the CA is experienced as a whole. With reference to the duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

The evidence provided indicates that the proposals would result in 6 additional vehicle movements per day across both sites. I observed that [address] was lightly trafficked and the areas with dropped kerbs provided passing places. In the overall context of the site and surrounding area, this would be a very small increase. This would not adversely affect traffic flow or result in conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. The Highway Authority have also advised that there are no known safety issues relating to on-street parking.

Interested parties raise concerns about increased noise and disturbance from occupation of the HMO but this could be controlled by a condition securing adherence to the submitted management plan. This would also secure single occupancy of each of the units, in accordance with the Transport Assessment assumptions. There is no evidence that there is an overconcentration of HMOs in Appeal Decision 6004498 and 6004499 the local area. In particular, the Council have not imposed Article 4 Directions to prevent the change of use of dwellings to HMO’s.

With regard to anti-social behaviour, I am referred to an appeal decision relating to Thanet2 and one in Broadstairs in Kent3. However there is no evidence to indicate that they are directly comparable to the appeals before me. The management plan deals with access controls and CCTV as referred to by the Police.

There is no substantive evidence that the proposals would result in increased litter in the surrounding area. The provision of refuse and recycling facilities on the site, secured by a condition, would conserve the visual amenity of the area.

The loss of a care home facility has already been accepted by the Council by virtue of the extant planning permissions4 at the site.

With regards to possible fire hazards, the [name] advises that these will be the subject of other legislation.

Even if occupancy of the site has already commenced, this is not material to my consideration of the appeals.

The views expressed by interested parties in respect of other applications at the appeal site, do not fall to be considered in my determination of these appeals.

I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have considered all the conditions suggested by the Council and the appellant’s comments thereon. I have imposed the conditions where they meet the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework, amending where necessary for the sake of simplicity, clarity and precision, including removing unnecessary tail pieces.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty (2).

A condition (3) to ensure that appropriate provision is made for refuse, recycling and cycle storage is necessary in the interests of promoting sustainable transport and in the visual interests of the area. A condition (4) to ensure that the site, including all external areas of the site are used and maintained in accordance with a management plan is necessary in the interest of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, future occupiers and in the visual interests of the area.

A condition to secure carbon reduction measures (5) and biodiversity protection and enhancements (6 and 7) are necessary to ensure compliance with the

In respect of Appeal B only, a further condition (8) is necessary to ensure that rooflights are installed to provide a satisfactory level of daylight into the rooms in the interest of the living conditions of future occupiers. 2 No further details have been provided 3 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2260/W/21/3286227 [address], Broadstairs, Kent [postcode] 4 [name]: 22/02109/[name] of residential care home (use class C2) into six flats (C3). Replacement of existing single-storey western projection with two storey extension. To southern elevation: removal of fire escape staircase and door and replacement with window; removal of dormer and replacement with rooflight; removal of pitched single storey extension and replacement with single storey flat-roof extension. To northern elevation: removal of dormer window and replacement with two dormer windows and [name]: 24/00227/[name] of leftover C2 residential care home into 6 C3 flats. Appeal Decision 6004498 and 6004499

The proposed developments would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, Appeal A and Appeal B are allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbers: DWL 04 [name]; DWL 07 Proposed Block Plan; DWL 09 Site Location Plan; DWL 11 [name] and DWL 12 [name].

Prior to the first occupation of any part of the building subject to this permission, the refuse, recycling and cycle storage shall be installed and available for use in accordance with details shown on the approved drawings. Once installed, the refuse, recycling and cycle storage and shall be maintained and retained for the lifetime of the development.

The development, including all external areas shall be implemented, maintained and thereafter operated in accordance with the Management Plan dated November 2025.

The development hereby approved shall be implemented, maintained and thereafter retained in accordance with the first issue Sustainability and [name] by Mach Group referenced 3267 dated 06 May 2025.

The works, including any demolition, vegetation clearance, timber treatment, under-felting and external lighting, shall proceed in accordance with the precautions and measures set out in the [name] by [name] referenced BR1267 dated 9 September 2025.

The biodiversity enhancements set out in the [name] by [name] referenced BR1267 dated 9 September 2025 shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any part of the building subject of this permission and thereafter maintained and retained for the lifetime of the development. Appeal Decision 6004498 and 6004499 Appeal B – Ref: 6004499 Schedule of conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbers: DWL 03 [name]; DWL 05 [name]; DWL 06 Proposed Block Plan; DWL 08 Site Location Plan; DWL 11 [name] and DWL 12 [name].

Prior to the first occupation of any part of the building subject to this permission, the refuse, recycling and cycle storage shall be installed and available for use in accordance with details shown on the approved drawings. Once installed, the refuse, recycling and cycle storage and shall be maintained and retained for the lifetime of the development.

The development, including all external areas shall be implemented, maintained and thereafter operated in accordance with the Management Plan dated November 2025.

The development hereby approved shall be implemented, maintained and thereafter retained in accordance with the first issue Sustainability and [name] by Mach Group referenced 3267 dated 06 May 2025.

The works, including any demolition, vegetation clearance, timber treatment, under-felting and external lighting, shall proceed in accordance with the precautions and measures set out in the [name] by [name] referenced BR1267 dated 9 September 2025.

The biodiversity enhancements set out in the [name] by [name] referenced BR1267 dated 9 September 2025 shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any part of the building subject of this permission and thereafter maintained and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of rooms 10,11 and 12 as identified on the [name] referenced DWL 05, a new rooflight to serve each of those rooms shall be installed in accordance with the details on the hereby approved [name] referenced DWL 11 and [name] referenced DWL 12 and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.