Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

17/0203/RES | Demolition of former surgery building and construction of 6no affordable terraced dwellings (application for approval of all reserved matters following grant of outline planning permission 16/0382/OUT) | Sidford Branch Surgery Church Street Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9RL
  • Total Consulted: 9
  • Consultees Responded: 0

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All

Clerk To Sidmouth Town Council

Consultation Date: Thu 23 Feb 2017

Sidmouth Sidford - Cllr Stuart Hughes

Consultation Date: Thu 23 Feb 2017

Sidmouth Sidford - Cllr Dawn Manley

Consultation Date: Thu 23 Feb 2017


Comment Date: Wed 31 May 2017

ADDRESS: Sidford Branch Surgery, Church Street, Sidford


Amended plans received 9th May 2017:

The drawings have now been amended to take account of the previous comments, see below:

o The eaves detailing now includes bargeboards, but indicate that these are proposed to be upvc. Timber, would be both more traditional and a preferable material, adjacent to the Conservation Area;
o Windows and doors remain unchanged and should preferably be timber;
o Dummy chimney stacks have been added which is an improvement aesthetically, but details and materials should be conditioned to ensure that these are an integral part of the construction;
o Paved paths are a better quality option than tarmac - sample required or condition;
o The roof and porches are now to be a natural slate, more in keeping with the surrounding terraced properties - sample slate required or to be conditioned;
o The new render samples are also an improvement - buttermilk, ivory and olar white being preferable and can be applied with a smoother finish;
o The brick sample for the detailing are unsuitable in terms of overall appearance and texture. It is not clear which material is to be used for the rear patio.

The amendments are certainly an improvement on the original scheme, but there are still some concerns or details/materials required.


Sidmouth Sidford - Cllr Marianne Rixson

Comment Date: Thu 30 Mar 2017

Planning application 17/0203/RES
Sidford Branch Surgery, Church Street, Sidford

In response to my enquiry about the footprint of the proposed houses at the above address, the officer advised me that the footprint was as follows:

The end units are 8.4 x 4.5m = 37.8m
And the central units are 8.4 x 4.3m = 36.1m

This compares with 150 and 152 Sidford Road at 8m x 5.3m = 42.4m

I feel these houses are too small and cramped. Reports in Architecture (2015) and the Guardian (2012) sum up the impact of this short-sighted approach to development and the consequences for home owners:

'More than half of the new homes being built today are not big enough to meet the needs of the people who buy them, according to new research published today (Wednesday 2 December) by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). This squeeze on the size of our houses is depriving thousands of families of the space needed for them to live comfortably and cohesively, to eat and socialise together, to accommodate a growing family or ageing relatives, or even to store possessions including everyday necessities such as a vacuum cleaner.'


'A report this week by Riba and Ipsos Mori found "long- and short-term storage space" - for everyday functional items such as ironing boards and bed linen, as well as seasonal or nostalgic possessions such as Christmas trees or a wedding dress - was one of the features people most wanted in their home.

The Way We Live Now: What People Need and Expect From Their Homes also found we want a dedicated space for tasks such as ironing and recycling; larger rooms and higher ceilings; and the possibility of "private space" for individual family members".
The common theme could be summed up in two words: more space. That, though, is what many British homes - especially modern ones - lack. We build the smallest new homes in Europe, significantly smaller than 100 years ago. This is not because of pressure on land: a 2007 Riba survey found the average floor space of a new dwelling in England and Wales was 76 sq m, against 81.5 sq m in Italy, 92 sq m in Japan and 115 sq m in Holland, all as densely populated. It's because builders make more money that way - and, perhaps, because we are the only EU country not to have minimum-space standards for the homes we live in.


I, therefore, agree with the recommendation by Sidmouth Town Council that the houses are too small. It would be preferable to have four houses on the site with parking per dwelling.

Cllr Marianne Rixson


Comment Date: Thu 16 Mar 2017


The existing modern building contributes very little to the setting of the conservation area or the terrace of grade II properties to the north.


The principle of the proposed replacement of the surgery building with a terrace of residential units was approved under 16/0382/OUT. At that time comments from SMG advised that:

A terrace of properties would be more consistent with the local character and urban gain of the area. In terms of design I would advise that a more traditional approach is adopted without the stepping of building line and a simpler roof form possibly broken up with stacks?

The current application appears to have taken this on board, but I would make the following minor points:

o The eaves detailing should include a bargeboard, preferably timber, particularly on the gable ends;
o Windows and doors should preferably be timber;
o The roof form has been simplified, but there are no chimney stacks;
o Tarmac paths are very unattractive and an alternative better quality material should be considered;
o The proposed materials/samples are unacceptable. The roof and porches should be slate, more in keeping with the surrounding terraced properties. The render is very gritty in appearance and the colour too yellow. There is no brick sample for the detailing or any paviours for the rear patio.

DATE: 16/03/17

Parish/Town Council

Comment Date: Thu 09 Mar 2017

Note: Members continued to be concerned about the lack of parking and were of the view that the proposed houses were too small. Members would have preferred to see 4 bigger houses built on the site with parking.

Devon County Highway Authority

Comment Date: Mon 27 Feb 2017

I make the same response recommendations as with the outline application 16/0382/OUT.
1. The Development shall not be brought into use or occupied until a sheltered and
secure cycle parking facility capable of accommodating a minimum of one cycle
per dwelling unit has been provided within the site. A design and specification to
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To encourage cycling and to provide safe and secure facility for the storage
of cycles.
2. In accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, and approved
by, the Local Planning Authority, provision shall be made within the site for the disposal
of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway
REASON: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway
Officer authorised to
sign on behalf of the County Council 3 March 2017

Environmental Health

Comment Date: Mon 27 Feb 2017

I have considered the application and note that this site is close to nearby residents who may be impacted during the construction process. We would request the applicant to consult and follow the council's Construction Sites Code of Practice prepared by Environmental Health and adopted by the council in order to ensure that any impacts are kept to a minimum. This is available on the council's website:

an Idox solution