Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

16/0872/MFUL | The construction of an assisted living community for older people comprising extra care units, staff accommodation and communal facilities, including a kitchen, restaurant/bar/cafe, a well-being suite comprising gym, treatment rooms and pool, a communal lounge and storage facilities; car parking for residents, visitors and staff of the assisted living community; comprehensive landscaping comprising communal and private spaces; and associated groundworks. | Council Offices Knowle Sidmouth EX10 8HL
  • Total Consulted: 155
  • Comments Received: 97
  • Objections: 93
  • Supporting: 1

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 97|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Ms MARY WALDEN-TILL (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 05 Dec 2016

Please see email with 2no photo attachments on the document tab of our website.

Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Nov 2016

These updated documents do not change my previous objections in any way.

The acknowledgement, on page 7 of the design statement, for the use of an image from a SidVale publication by 'Christine and Bob Barnard' (sic) epitomises their whole stance. They can't be bothered to get the details right but want to look pretty and clever. It is of course Christine and Rab Barnard.

The rest of their submissions are of the same standard

They explain at length why they can't do anything about the drainage, without understanding that that means there are too many buildings on the site.

They play at mitigating the effects on wildlife, including bats.

They moan that they really have considered the effects on the listed summerhouse, and then go on to say, in effect, that they can't see it is worth much consideration as it is old and falling down.

The proposed application is too large in all dimensions for the site and needs drastically reducing in size.

They need to look properly at Sidmouth's Cottage Ornee styles and then stop trying to fool us that their designs feed into that historical context. Their claim that flint house walls are indicative of the style needs reassessing.

They are still pretending this is a care home when it is a retirement village.

Nothing has really changed they have just produced a huge quantity of bumf in an attempt to confuse people into thinking that important changes have occurred.

Mr Michael Temple (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Nov 2016

I wish to make the following comments on the latest changes to 16/0872/MFUL:

Amendments to the design and footprint of Building E and associated landscaping:

The concerns pf EDDC's Chief Planning Officer's about the "bulk, scale and massing" * of Buildings D and E resulting from their forward projection as well as their impact on the listed summerhouse and his recommendation that "Building E be set back" to the existing office footprint "to remove the harm to the setting of the listed building" (see letter from Tibbalds 4 August) have received only a token response from PegasusLife, the minor and mainly cosmetic changes doing little to address the issues. Although Building E has been set back a few metres, it will be on higher ground and dwarf the listed folly. Its impact will be at least as serious as was the previous proposal, especially as ground levels may be raised as well. Building E rises to a height of 20.1 metres (66 feet) from the level of the listed folly. The two buildings D & E will dominate the park and in no way "tastefully ornament" the listed building. (The recent growth of vegetation near the folly is a direct result of neglect on the part of the Council. Until recently the listed building enjoyed a spacious green setting and this should have been and should be maintained.)


Drainage:
The excessive number of apartments and the bulk and massing of the buildings, particularly those on the lawn terraces, together with the steep slope of the internal road leading to the car park, raised ground levels and masses of concrete and tarmac will cause the flood/drainage problems referred to in the latest drainage report. The planting of a few small trees will in no way compensate for the large ones chopped down .

It would be hard to find a more obvious example of overdevelopment and unsustainable development than this.

I wish all my previous objections to stand, including my comments about the misleading artistic impressions upon which The Design Review Panel's views were based. These are contradicted by PegasusLife's own later photomontages submitted in August, one of which shows Buildings A and F to be twice the height shown in the artist impression.

Michael Temple

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Nov 2016

For the attention of Central Planning and James Brown:

I wish to make the following comments on the latest changes to 16/0872/MFUL:

Amendments to the design and footprint of Building E and associated landscaping:

The concerns pf EDDC's Chief Planning Officer's about the "bulk, scale and massing" * of Buildings D and E resulting from their forward projection as well as their impact on the listed summerhouse and his recommendation that "Building E be set back" to the existing office footprint "to remove the harm to the setting of the listed building" (see letter from Tibbalds 4 August) have received only a token response from PegasusLife, the minor and mainly cosmetic changes doing little to address the issues. Although Building E has been set back a few metres, it will be on higher ground and dwarf the listed folly. Its impact will be at least as serious as was the previous proposal, especially as ground levels may be raised as well. Building E rises to a height of 20.1 metres (66 feet) from the level of the listed folly. The two buildings D & E will dominate the park and in no way "tastefully ornament" the listed building. (The recent growth of vegetation near the folly is a direct result of neglect on the part of the Council. Until recently the listed building enjoyed a spacious green setting and this should have been and should be maintained.)


Drainage:
The excessive number of apartments and the bulk and massing of the buildings, particularly those on the lawn terraces, together with the steep slope of the internal road leading to the car park, raised ground levels and masses of concrete and tarmac will cause the flood/drainage problems referred to in the latest drainage report. The planting of a few small trees will in no way compensate for the large ones chopped down .

It would be hard to find a more obvious example of overdevelopment and unsustainable development than this.

I wish all my previous objections to stand, including my comments about the misleading artistic impressions upon which The Design Review Panel's views were based. These are contradicted by PegasusLife's own later photomontages submitted in August, one of which shows Buildings A and F to be twice the height shown in the artist impression.

Michael Temple

copy to Heloise: planningclerk@sidmouth.gov.uk

Comment submitted date: Fri 16 Sep 2016

Please see letter submitted 16 September on the document page of our website.

Comment submitted date: Thu 09 Jun 2016

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development at Knowle by PegasusLife, ref. 16/0872/MFUL , for the following reasons:

Impact on my property:
Building A, at its northern end, is to be sited almost 9 metres (29 feet) closer to my property than the present office building; it will have a flat roof 1.42 metres (almost 5 feet) higher than the office building. The upper windows will thus look directly into my main bedroom, bathroom and landing, a serious invasion of my privacy. A little further south the roof rises to an overbearing 5.36 metres (17 feet) above the present office roofline. In addition I will be subjected to 24-hour light and noise pollution as the main traffic will flow opposite my house to & from the main carpark.

D1: Design and Local Distinctiveness:
1. The proposed development does not respect the key characteristics and special quality of the area in which the development is proposed (see Para 58 National Planning Policy Framework). It is surrounded by parkland, residential properties of no more than two storeys with sizeable gardens and is adjacent to a Coastal Conservation Area to the west and to the east from which it will be starkly visible. The Dell development will be highly visible from the eastern "green approach to Sidmouth".

2. The scale, massing, density, height and materials do not relate well to their context: at up to 5-storey height, the large blocks of massed flats in no way complement the surrounding area. In particular, the two high blocks, 18 metres high (i.e. 59 feet) from the south, on the lawn terraces will have a devastating effect on the southern public gardens while the 5-storey building on the Dell (upper car park) will be highly visible from the main "green approach" to Sidmouth. Almost all the proposed blocks of buildings are considerably higher that the existing old hotel building and modern offices - Building A is 5.36 metres (17 and a half feet) higher, Building C is 4.52 metres (almost 15 feet) higher while Building F is nearly 7 metres (23 feet) higher. This makes the building mass visible from far afield, a blot on the skyline of Sidmouth.

3. (a) The development is grossly out of scale and keeping with the historic and architectural character of the area. The development includes a "garden grab"since buildings D and E, despite PegasusLife's earlier assurances to residents, are to be sited almost entirely on the upper lawns down to their edges. The terrace is a key feature of this historic park.

(b) The development adversely affects the important topographical and ecological features of a unique public woodland park-with-gardens and threatens its wildlife, notably nearby badger setts and the badgers' nocturnal route to water which will become the main road to the main parking area.

(e) The development adversely affects the amenities of nearby residents whose properties will be overlooked by overbearing blocks of flats with upper windows, particularly, for example, the following properties - Hillcrest, Old Walls, The Pippins, Blue Hayes and Knowle House. Building A will be well above the present roofline of the current offices. This, like Building F, will overlook and overshadow nearby properties, intruding on their privacy and cutting their light. In addition there will be 24-hour light and noise pollution for nearby residents.

(f) The public's footpath access to the park from the north and safe passage towards the town will be compromised by the development since access will be only on a "permissive" basis and could therefore be closed at any time or even permanently.(See Para 75 NPPF)

7. There will be considerable traffic noise and light pollution from the development affecting the lives and health of neighbours.

8. The design (including cladding, roofs etc) of the buildings is a hotch-potch of inferior and incompatible elements and materials out of keeping with the architecture of Sidmouth and on a sensitive important site.

D2: Landscape Requirements: see comments for D1 3(f) above.

EN5: Wildlife Habitats and Features:
There are long-established badger setts adjacent to the site and the badgers' route to water will be affected by the tarmacking of their route. Their lives will be endangered by about 50 cars using this route to and from the main car park. (See Para 123 NPPF).Badgers have been recently (19/05/2016) located by the Area Co-ordinator of the Devon Badger Group just south of the listed summerhouse (this is not shown in the map in PegasusLife's Ecological Report) and their route to water will be compromised by the road leading to the development's main carpark. This is likely to endanger the lives of any animals using this route to water. In addition the zig-zag ramp up a very high wall proposed at upper Knowle Drive will be unsuitable as a route for badgers.

EN7: Proposals Affecting Sites of Potential Architectural Importance:
22.12: The development involves the demolition of buildings of local historic importance whose chambers are used for public meetings. The massive Building E proposed on the south-west lawn terrace which is at least 18 metres (59 feet) high from its south elevation, will seriously affect the setting and ambience of a listed summerhouse sited only a few yards away ( Para 132 NPPF).

EN10: Conservation Areas:
The site is adjacent to Coastal Conservation Areas to the west and east, and the development will be visible as a blot on the skyline over a wide area. (This is not shown in the PegasusLife montages.)

H2: Range and Mix of New Housing Development:
The development does not contain a proper mix of dwelling sizes, being instead a series of high and bulky blocks of flats out of scale and keeping with the surrounding residential properties.

Access to public park:
PegasusLife are only allowing permissive paths from upper Knowle Drive and from the south eastern end of the "plateau" into the southern woodland public park.
About 40 local people use the route from upper Knowle Drive into the park regularly. The zig-zag ramp proposed is clearly much less satisfactory and timeconsuming than the present road. More concerningly, the route into the park will only be on a "permissive" basis and therefore could be closed at any time and even closed permanently, e.g. at the request of residents of the estate.

Parking:
There is inadequate parking provision for the proposed number of dwellings plus staff and visitors. This will lead to parking on Broadway and Knowle Drive or, if yellow lines are put on the public roads, it will mean a loss of amenities to local residents like myself who have no available alternative to on-road parking . It will also mean that the grasscrete public car park used by visitors to this tourist town will be taken over by PegasusLife.

Only 50 homes are designated for this site in the Local Plan - PegasusLife are proposing 115 plus accommodation for staff. In bulk, massing and height this is gross overdevelopment.


Yours faithfully


(Michael Temple)

Mrs J Green (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 17 Nov 2016

Please see letter received 17 November on the document tab of our website.

Comment submitted date: Fri 10 Jun 2016

Please see scanned letter received 9 June 2016 in associated documents

Mr David Green (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 17 Nov 2016

Please see letter received 17 November on the document tab of our website.

Comment submitted date: Fri 10 Jun 2016

Sirs, I strongly object to this planning application in its current form for the following reasons: Noise The proposed development would lead to increased levels of noise in the locality over the whole week due to vehicle movements, their residents and visitors. EDDC are currently only active five days a week during office hours. Parking Problems Whilst it is true to say that EDDC's employees and visitors currently contribute to parking problems, looking at PegasusLife's application I would expect these problems to increase for the residents of Knowle Drive, of which I am one. Moreover, these problems would exist not just over five days per week and during office hours. Vehicular Access I have already expressed my concern to PegasusLife about vehicle movements that would take place throughout the week and close to the rear of my property, if they were given permission for this development. There is currently no through road in the park. Design There are still far too many apartments in this development proposal when compared with the Local Plan. There should be a general lowering of the height of the Plateau buildings near upper Knowle Drive by one storey. This would make them less visually intrusive. Impact On My Property If this planning application is approved it would have a profoundly negative impact on my property and my enjoyment of it, not to mention its saleability. This is due to the sheer mass and height of the nearby buildings plus the proximity to my rear boundary. It would represent a serious loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. The current EDDC buildings are bad enough already especially now that some tree thinning has started. One can only imagine how bad things will become if this development goes ahead. Yours Faithfully D Green

Cllr Marianne Rixson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 17 Nov 2016

16/0872/MFUL: The Knowle, Sidmouth
I object to this application on the following grounds:
Strategy 4 - Balanced Communities
The District Public Health Summary 2015 -16 (Devon County Council) for East Devon reveals that
Sidmouth has a far higher over 85 population than the rest of the country, let alone Devon.
Assisted living accommodation on this site will do nothing to redress the existing imbalance.
https://devonhealthandwellbeing.org.uk/jsna/himp/
Strategy 36 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes and Care/Extra care homes
The figure quoted in the local plan for Sidmouth is 50 care/extra care home spaces up to 2031 and
Green Close will provide 36 sheltered apartments. The Knowle will add another 113 apartments,
which will bring the total to 3 x the numbers in the Local Plan in just one year.
Where are the Affordable Homes for local families which are needed to redress the balance in the
existing housing mix?
Strategy EN22 Flood Mitigation
Pegasus Life are trying to avoid the responsibility of installing adequate flood attenuation tanks to
cope with flooding on the site. This contravenes East Devon Local Plan Policy EN22 (Surface
Water Run-off Implications of New Development).
The Environment Agency report on Adapting to Climate Change: Advice for Flood and Coastal
Erosion Risk Management Authorities was issued on 13th April 2016. The report states: 'This
advice should be applied to all future appraisals that are started (new) from March 2016 or are to
be submitted for approval after 1st September 2016.'
Previously, The Environment Agency advised an increase in peak rainfall intensity of 20% in terms
of surface water. This guidance has been revised in the south west to 40%. Pegasus must be
required to provide double the flood attenuation tank storage: these tanks should also meet the
design standards approved by South West Water.
If Pegasus Life are unwilling or unable to guarantee they will meet the new guidelines, this
application must be refused, as The Environment Agency guidance is already a material
consideration for all new planning applications and, therefore, a valid reason for planning objection.
This application should be REFUSED.
Cllr Marianne Rixson

Peter Sidebotham (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Nov 2016

Re: 16/0872/MFUL

Sir/Madam

I write in response to the amended design supplied by Pegasus Life on the 28th October 2016. I would ask the DMC to consider the following points carefully lest they take a decision that runs against the very nature of Sidmouth's identity and vital legacy for the future.

1) The new Design and Access Statement makes an elaborate case to diminish the importance of the Summerhouse in relation to the 'extensive public benefits' of the project to the community. As a member of that public - I can confirm that the most extensive benefit to us the local community would be not to demolish the buildings at all. Instead the existing structure should be renovated using ecologically sound, carbon neutral techniques, instead of the crude, wholesale demolition proposed. This is a perfect opportunity for EDDC Planning to show that it is a forward looking, ecologically aware body regarding such major projects. We as your Council Tax payers ask that you bring East Devon up to date and join the modern development community.
2) The Summerhouse is in fact a key ingredient and remnant of the Knowle's history in Sidmouth. By totally demolishing the structure to which it relates - including the 19th century Council Chambers with its beautiful flint walls and turreted roof - the 'setting' of this listed building is not only 'harmed' it is completely obliterated. Its replacement by a towering, modern structure is to trash the cultural identity of this key element of our historic town.
3) The new proposal frequently quotes the Design Review Panel's very incomplete and one-sided report, implying it is authoritative and independent. However since the report has been commissioned by EDDC and paid for by Pegasus Life, both of whom have a vested interest in approving this planning application, it cannot be regarded as 'independent' at all. Indeed in the words of the Panel's own website, their work is intended to "support applicants and decision-makers in gaining planning approval." The Design Review Panel's opinion should be wholly discounted.
4) The above point is further proved by the fact that the Design Review Panel never consulted any of the people directly affected by the application. Any 'independent' body should of its nature, take into account all points of view on the project under consideration. By consulting only the applicants they have revealed their full bias and non-neutrality.
5) The very slight shrinkage and 7metre retreat of the still 20 metre high, building E, claiming that this now no longer harms the 'setting' of a listed building, is to make a mockery of this long established planning requirement. It should be seen for what it is - a gesture that makes no difference what-so-ever to the application overall.
6) The extensive use of tree cover in the application drawings, implying that this giant structure would in fact be hidden from view, is a dangerous precedent and should be regarded with great caution. Many of the trees are old and near to the end of their lives; some are diseased as the Arboreal Report makes clear. Furthermore a few applications drawings show 'view' arrows passing through the supposed tree cover. This is in fact the developer revealing to prospective flat purchasers that the tree cover may be less than it appears (or can be clipped, or significantly changed). Such behaviour represents a clear conflict between the needs of the developer and that of all of Sidmouth, who, should the tree cover be even slightly diminished, would be seeing this totally out of character development from all over the town.

Yours faithfully

Peter Sidebotham - Station Road. Sidmouth

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Nov 2016

16/0872/MFUL

Sir

I write in response to the amended design supplied by Pegasus Life on the 28th October 2016. I would ask the DMC to consider the following points carefully lest they take a decision that runs against the very nature of Sidmouth's identity and legacy for the future.

1) The new Design and Access Statement makes an elaborate case to diminish the importance of the Summerhouse in relation to the 'extensive public benefits' of the project to the community. As a member of that public - I can confirm that the most extensive benefit to us the local community would be not to demolish the buildings at all. Instead the existing structure should be renovated using ecologically sound, carbon neutral techniques, instead of the crude, wholesale demolition proposed. This is a perfect opportunity for EDDC Planning to show that it is a forward looking, ecologically aware body regarding such major projects. We as your Council Tax payers ask that you bring East Devon up to date and join the modern development community.
2) The Summerhouse is in fact a key ingredient and remnant of the Knowle's history in Sidmouth. By totally demolishing the structure to which it relates - including the 19th century Council Chambers with its beautiful flint walls and turreted roof - the 'setting' of this listed building is not only 'harmed' it is completely obliterated. Its replacement by a towering, modern structure is to trash the cultural identity of this key element of our historic town.
3) The new proposal frequently quotes the Design Review Panel's very incomplete and one-sided report, implying it is authoritative and independent. However since the report has been commissioned by EDDC and paid for by Pegasus Life, both of whom have a vested interest in approving this planning application, it cannot be regarded as 'independent' at all. Indeed in the words of the Panel's own website, their work is intended to "support applicants and decision-makers in gaining planning approval." The Design Review Panel's opinion should be wholly discounted.
4) The above point is further proved by the fact that the Design Review Panel never consulted any of the people directly affected by the application. Any 'independent' body should of its nature, take into account all points of view on the project under consideration. By consulting only the applicants they have revealed their full bias and non-neutrality.
5) The very slight shrinkage and 7metre retreat of the still 20 metre high, building E, claiming that this now no longer harms the 'setting' of a listed building, is to make a mockery of this long established planning requirement. It should be seen for what it is - a mere gesture that makes no difference what-so-ever to the application overall.
6) The extensive use of tree cover in the application drawings, implying that this giant structure would in fact be hidden from view, is a dangerous precedent and should be regarded with great caution. Many of the trees are old and near to the end of their lives; some are diseased as the Arboreal Report makes clear. Furthermore a few applications drawings show 'view' arrows passing through the supposed tree cover. This is in fact the developer revealing to prospective flat purchasers that the tree cover may be less than it appears (or can be clipped, or significantly changed). Such behaviour represents a clear conflict between the needs of the developer and that of all of Sidmouth, who, should the tree cover be even slightly diminished, would be seeing this totally out of character development from all over the town, and for long periods of time.

Yours faithfully

Peter Sidebotham - Station Road. Sidmouth

Comment submitted date: Tue 17 May 2016

I write in strong objection to the proposed planning application of PegasusLife for the demolition of the Knowle buildings and creation of a disproportionately large care home.

To destroy the 19th century Council Offices with its pergola roof and flint walls would not only be a tragic loss for Sidmouth's historical environment, the proposed gigantic construction is also completely out of character and unnecessary for Britain's best preserved Regency seaside town. These historic buildings could easily have been saved and made into interesting features within any new development. In addition the elimination of the large upper car park - when there is already a summer parking shortage in Sidmouth - and choice upper lawn terraces of the Knowle Park contravene the terms of stewardship of the Knowle when it was given to the District Council for safekeeping in the 1970s.

It is surprising that East Devon District Council could allow PegasusLife even to submit their proposal for 115 homes when the local plan clearly allocates 50 for the area. It is surprising too that the Council permitted some of the accompanying surveys and documents to be verified - given the remarkable absence of crucial views over the western town in the Townscape and Visual Impact Statement, and the heavily biased consultant's conclusions in favour of the applicant, as in the Arboricultural Survey and Heritage and Archeological Statement.

To then only give locals until the 30th May to prepare our case and make objections - as the Council letter states - is in breach of the three week rule for planning. This is not the way to proceed with the most important and controversial planning application for Sidmouth in over a decade.

For the above points alone it is clear that to approve this application would display a marked failure by the Council in its role as responsible custodian of the region. Thus I strongly urge the DMC to show their understanding of East Devon and its future by wholeheartedly rejecting 16/0872/MFUL.

Yours faithfully




Peter Sidebotham - Station Rd. Sidmouth.

Mr Peter Murphy (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Nov 2016

Sirs, I have the following objections to the latest proposals by Pegasus Life for the Knowle Development.

1. I can not see in the proposals a satisfactory solution to the drainage problem. Such a vast amount of hard surface will produce runoff which if not properly channelled will create unacceptable risks to properties and infrastructure in Sidmouth, and consequent disruption to traffic and the economy, and conceivably tourist revenues should major repairs to roads become necessary. I further foresee that uncontrolled and unchanneled surface runoff may enter the sewage system causing effluent overflow and risk to public health and the town's tourist reputation.
2. Sidmouth advertises its regency heritage and timeless charm to attract visitors. The large buildings proposed in the development are incompatible with Sidmouth's architectural heritage and the town's context within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Further I find alterations on this scale to Sidmouth's skyline unacceptable personally, and unacceptable because of the potential to damage Sidmouth's natural attraction as an unspoilt location, and potentially therefore adversely affect the town's tourist revenues.

Sincerely

Peter Murphy
76 Sidford Road

Mr & Mrs R Whittle (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Nov 2016

Further to our previous submitted objections which still stand, we feel we must write to ensure that no one is unaware of the dangers presented by this hilltop development.

We are most concerned that Pegasus, EDDC planning executives and Councillors should be made aware that this proposed hilltop development is totally unsuitable for a location as a care home for anyone who is elderly, frail or disabled.

Over time, living on at the corner of the development,that will require to be traversed in order to use the facilities of both Dell and Plateau, we have become increasingly aware that anything outside requires to be moved, secured, staked or tied down. The winds at this point are ferocious. This week, during the high winds, a large, heavy, six foot sculpture was toppled. Anyone living in Sidmouth will know that this weeks winds were not the worst that we are likely to experience this year.

We feel that there is a duty of care that must not be overlooked. Residents at the Knowle will not want an after the event enquiry in order to,'learn lessons for the future'. For someone it may be too late.

Re: Planning application: 16/0872/MFUL

Comment submitted date: Fri 19 Aug 2016

We object to the revised proposals which have done nothing of real note to alleviate the dire impact on our property.

In the interests of expediency, we will at this time desist from discussing the many anomalies within the revised proposal drawings and statements pertaining to Hillcrest, some of which we cannot recognise or locate on our building. It is noted that some alterations have already been accepted as errors made in prior Pegasus Proposal versions.

The Dell.
Between Hillcrest and this proposed Dell building is an overgrown hedge which we have repeatedly asked the council to maintain and reduce in height, as it denies daylight to all our east facing rooms.
o We object to the suggestion that a S.160 agreement to manage and maintain this hedge would be an acceptable solution to the loss of daylight, loss of privacy or the perception of overlooking.
o The Dell Tower would exacerbate the existing problem, making it impossible for any light to filter through or over the hedge. The unkempt hedge should not be used to give credence to the Dell Tower's inexpiably proposed height.


Plateau
Open Doc. 2391416 Revised Des & Ass Aug 10, 2016 Sections 5,6 &7. P84 (39of48)

In the CG (computer generated) images building A is shown to extend along Hillcrest's south view from our front to back perimeters, proceeding still further where it is shown to extend from our East side, in order to form part of the Gateway vista. It is huge.

The photograph of the existing EDDC office block, which is closest to us, shows clearly that it is built far to our East with no overlooking of our full length lounge/dining room windows. Hillcrest and the office buildings were built in harmony, following lines to afford light and privacy to both buildings. The Pegasus proposals destroy this harmony, through overwhelming bulk, scale and massing, here and throughout the site.

Pegasus suggests, 'Hillcrest has a high brick garden wall which prevents any view of their garden or windows'. The illustration of view 'from Hillcrest' suggests that light will enter our property.
Neither is the case, our interior spaces, will be denied any daylight by the mass of this overwhelming building.

o We object to the overlooking resulting from windows and balconies of Block A, clearly evident from the CG images.

Furthermore, Hillcrest windows can, even at present, be clearly seen from the windows of the EDDC planning office, at its much further distance and lower height, than would be the case of this Pegasus building A proposal. Indeed we can see people working in these offices.

o The windows and balconies on Block A would be obtrusively evident, as the building would completely fill the space, width and height, directly in front of all our main living-rooms.
o Our amenities of daylight and privacy would be utterly and unacceptably compromised.

It is stated that, 'These buildings have been designed in conjunction with the residents of Hillcrest'. We have witness to the spurious nature of this claim which is untrue. In fact, it is contrary to that which we have proposed. No meaningful consultation was undertaken. And, since we have spoken candidly to Pegasus' representatives, we regret that this fatuous statement serves only to further frustrate our efforts to have any purposeful discourse around this proposal.

o It is indisputably evident that the height of both the Dell Tower and Block A require to be reduced by a story.
This would more accurately and carefully modulate similar roofline heights in relation to Hillcrest. Notwithstanding, that to illustrate their contentions, they use the top roofline of Hillcrest, but the lowest rooflines of their buildings, regardless of whether they are the closest in proximity, such reduced rooflines would also more adequately respect the built form found within the rest of the Dell area, whilst at the same time presenting a more approachable entrance height at the Plateau.

Please read this objection statement together with our previously submitted objections.

Pegasus know that the cumulative effect of all they are proposing around Hillcrest is indefensibly unreasonable.

We implore the planners to insist that real change is implemented before consent is given.


Yours sincerely,

Rob and Sandra Whittle

Comment submitted date: Tue 09 Aug 2016

Thank you for your time to discuss the above proposal on 2nd August at your offices.
We discussed several issues regarding our unique situation, at Hillcrest, in relation to the present application for which Pegasus is seeking approval.
We are writing today to again address the matter of the walled 'garden/pathed walkway' areas surrounding the EDDC office buildings.

At our meeting:
1. You confirmed that from earlier superimposed 'drawings' provided by Pegasus, we could establish that on the present superimposed drawings provided, the building outline purporting to be that of the EDDC office buildings, now incorporates into its mass, the walled garden/pathed areas to be the EDDC office building line.

2. You used this included walled area, to measure and compare past and present proximities to Hillcrest.
Importantly, we too have walled pathed areas surrounding our property.

The present proposals forward the apartment buildings to a point at which our walled pathed areas measure 3.3m deep. We have not included planted areas in this measurement and would be pleased for you to revisit our property to verify this measurement in order to include it in your calculations.
In the interests of uniform criteria this measurement must be used in your calculations. Please confirm that it will be.

This otherwise establishes that the measurements supplied now by Pegasus are inaccurately misleading, effectively the proposed buildings are even closer and larger than perceived in the drawings provided for approval.
These deceptive drawings are of GREAT CONSEQUENCE when assessing the impact these enormous buildings will bear upon us. It is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that the existing office buildings are not visually appraised as indicators of where or how large the new buildings would be.
We look forward to your comments on this matter.

Mr Richard Long (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Nov 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Application 16/0872/MFUL

We comment as follows and object to the latest changes to the Knowle development made by PegasusLife.

With regards to the Folly we see no benefit in moving Building E up onto the terraces which will make it appear even higher. The whole development is far too tall as it is.

Drainage is a serious issue and in no way should this have been addressed at such a late date. If this development should go ahead PegasusLife must ensure in their building plans that there is no risk of any flooding south and east of the Knowle.

Richard and Mary Long

K Dent (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Nov 2016

please see scanned copy of letter received 11.11.16 on the associated documents tab.

Showing 1-10 of 97|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution