Appeal 6005166

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of containerised plant room at [site address] , Exeter, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/1721/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Some of the Council’s evidence refers to the proposal as a ‘shipping container’. Their decision notice replicates the description of development on the application form. I have used the latter in my decision.

Building works were being undertaken at the appeal site at the time of my site visit. However, these works did not prevent me from undertaking my assessment.

The main issue is the effect of the development proposed on the character of [site address] and the site within which it sits.

[site address] is a detached, brick building with hipped roofs, dating from around the late 1980s. It is an in-patient care facility and part of [address] Hospital. It is of some architectural merit and includes distinguishing features such as the fire escape staircases and hipped roofs referenced by the Council.

However, several contrasting features already characterise the building, and the wider locality within the grounds of both [address] and the [name] & Exeter ([name] & E) hospitals. These not only include various signs, parking pay machines, metal security fences, but also containerised storage and/or plant units such as that proposed. The existing building’s bright blue entrance doors are also a dominant form contrasting with the hue of the brickwork and windows on the front elevation.

The main entrance to the building faces onto a car park and loading areas. The entrance is also offset, and the building sits on sloping ground, these features masking the fact that the building is generally symmetrical in plan. Indeed, from the front, the building appears as a rather organic form, the subject of past alterations, and sited within a setting of hard surfaces and parked vehicles.

The proposed siting of the containerised plant room is to the front of the building. It would be largely set within a recess against a glazed link between the main part of the building and one of its wings. This recessed siting, together with the projection of the main entrance area, means that views of it would be limited. Only at the further extents of the car park from the main entrance would the proposal be seen in the context of the whole front elevation. From such viewpoints the car parking and main entrance currently dominate the view, and this would remain the case with the proposal in situ.

In the context of the above, the proposal’s colour finish, in combination with the proposed siting and modest scale, would ensure that it would not be an incongruous feature set against the front elevation of the building. It would also be subservient in scale and siting. I reach the same conclusions in respect of the proposed, functionally subservient, security fence which is also shown on the plans.

The glazed connection, adjacent to the proposed siting, is dual aspect. The rear aspect provides views from inside the building to the soft landscaped areas at the rear which appear to be used for outside rest and recreation. Views in both directions between the glazed connection and this outside area would remain unaffected by the proposal. The proposal would block views into and out of the connection from the front. However, the views in and out are limited in quality and extent because of the setting of the car park and the projection of the existing building either side respectively. This means that the proposal’s effect on outlook and the character of the glazed link is very limited with no harm to the latter.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in no harm to the character of [site address] and the site within which it sits. As such it would accord with saved policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011. This policy seeks to ensure that developments promote local distinctiveness and relate well, in terms of shape, massing and materials, to the character and appearance of the adjoining buildings and the surrounding townscape. The reinforcement of local distinctiveness cited in the policy is an aim of Objective 9 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy. I have also had regard to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), specifically paragraph 135, in reaching these

There is common ground between the main parties for the need for a building to accommodate plant to provide heating and hot water to [site address] . Its provision would accord with the provisions of the Framework, specifically paragraph 96, which advises that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which enable and support healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health. In this context there are benefits that I afford moderate weight in favour of the proposal. [name] find no harm arising from the proposal, such weight in favour of it is not material to my decision.

The appeal site is within the setting of the grade II listed main building of [address] Hospital (referred to as [name] in the listing). This setting of hospital uses within landscaped grounds contributes to the overall significance of this designated heritage asset. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Both main parties agree that there would be a negligible effect on the setting of [name] with no harm to its significance. From the evidence before me, including my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions.

The appeal site characteristics provide negligible habitat value. I find that such characteristics afford the proposal the de minimis exemption under the [name] (Exemptions) Regulations 2024.

A planter would need to be removed to accommodate the proposal. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that there is no re-provision of the planter within the proposed layout and that, even if there was, it would not affect the proposal’s appearance. However, I have already found that the effect of the proposal on the character of [site address] , and the site within which it sits, would be acceptable. The absence of the planter is therefore not determinative to my decision.

The Council comment that any connection equipment between the proposal and [site address] would likely to be visible from external public visual receptors and from the connection inside. I acknowledge that such connections would be functionally necessary. However, their details are not before me, and in any case, may not constitute development. They are beyond the scope of what I can consider in this Section 78 appeal.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

The Council have suggested a condition restricting construction hours associated with the proposal. There were other construction works being undertaken during my weekday, daytime visit. I am unaware as to whether such works continue during the evenings and/or at weekends. Nevertheless, given the existing building’s in-patient care use, I find it is necessary and reasonable to restrict the times and days of construction. I have imposed a condition accordingly.

The Council have also suggested a condition relating to noise limits from the proposed plant during the operational phase of the development. Again, I am aware of the in-patient care use of the existing building. Given the proximity of the proposal to this building, a condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of the living conditions of the patients as well as visitors and members of staff. I have slightly amended the Council’s suggested condition as the details of the siting of the plant within the proposed plant room are already known. It is their noise specification that is needed, as well as operations complying with BS 4142:2014).

For the reasons set out above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal is acceptable. Therefore, the appeal is 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 drawing no E2797 AL(0)01 – Existing and Proposed.

Construction works shall take place only between 08:00 hrs – 18:00 hrs Monday to Friday and shall not take place at any time on Saturdays, Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

Prior to the plant's installation within the plant room hereby approved, the following details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority: a. the noise specification of the plant; and, b. evidence to demonstrate that noise levels will comply with BS 4142:2014. The plant will operate in accordance with the approved details.