®Planning appeal decision
Epsom Ewell & St. Hellier Nhs Trust, Epsom General Hospital Dorking Road, EPSOM, KT18 7EG
demolition of the existing hospital buildings, accommodation block and associated structures and redevelopment of the site to provide a new care community for older people arranged in two buildings, comprising 302 care residences, 10 care apartments and 28 care suites providing transitional care, together with ancillary communal and support services Use Class C2, 24 key worker units Use Class C3, children’s nursery Use Class E, as well as associated back of house and service areas, car and cycle parking, altered vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, private amenity space and public open space. Appeal B: APP/P3610/W/21/3276483 Epsom General Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom KT18 7EG
- Authority
- Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Other Major Developments
- Inspector
- Prentis D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the proposals on the historic environment
- the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring residents
- whether the proposals would make satisfactory provision for affordable housing and the infrastructure required to support the development
What decided it
Appeal A was dismissed because the failure to achieve good design (excessive height, massing and proximity of the tallest buildings to Woodcote Green Road) caused significant harm to character and appearance that was not outweighed by the scheme's benefits; Appeal B was allowed because its reduced height and stepped frontage achieved good design and the scheme accorded with the development plan as a whole.
Appeal A: heritage harm was outweighed by public benefits, but the significant harm to character and appearance meant the adverse effects of granting permission significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits under the Framework's tilted balance, and the proposal conflicted with the development plan as a whole, so it was dismissed. Appeal B: heritage harm was similarly outweighed by public benefits, the scheme achieved good design overall, accorded with the development plan as a whole, and other material considerations favoured the appeal, so it was allowed.
Framework references: 11, 60, 62, 120, 126, 130, 202
Plan policies cited: Policy CS5, Policy CS8, Policy CS9, Policy DM5, Policy DM9, Policy DM10, Policy DM11, Policy DM13, Policy DM21
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.