PLANNING APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE

1 THE SQUARE, OLD EXETER STREET, CHUDLEIGH, DEVON, TQ13 0LD

Contents

1.0 Appeal Description

2.0 Site Description

3.0 Pre-application Discussions

4.0 Proposal Description and the Principle of the Development.

5.0 National Planning Policy Framework and Policy Context.

6.0 S106 Obligation - Affordable Housing

7.0 Conclusion

8.0 Appendix:

1. Statement for Members; 2. Scheme Design Evolution Diagrams; 3. Pre-Application images; 4. Draft S106 Obligation.

�1 �

1.0 Appeal Description

1.1 This appeal is submitted against the decision of Teignbridge Council to refuse planning permission (planning reference 15/01770/FUL) for the demolition of an existing single storey commercial unit and its replacement with a new development comprising a ground floor retail unit and 7 dwellings (2 one bed apartments, 4 two bed apartments and a three bedroom house).

1.2 The two refusal reasons of the Council’s Planning Committee, contrary to the recommendation of its professional officers, appear to largely duplicate the same argument - namely that the proposal would lead to the loss of an open space considered by the Council to be important to the centre of the Chudleigh Conservation Area, and that this, together with the proposed scale and massing of the development itself, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Chudleigh Conservation Area, particularly with regard to the street scene of New Exeter Street and Old Exeter Street, and the setting of the listed Obelisk and War Memorial.

1.3 On this basis, the Council considered the development to be contrary to Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Criteria), S2 (Quality Development), S20 (Chudleigh), CH8 (Town Centre Enhancement) and EN5 (Heritage Assets) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, the Chudleigh Conservation Area Management Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.4 This Statement of Case should be read in conjunction with the accompanying detailed ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’ (Expedite).

2.0 Site Description

2.1 The site description of the Council’s Conservation Officer within the planning application consultation response helpfully provides a very relevant and succinct description of the site, in addition to confirming why the proposed development was considered to be acceptable to the Council’s professional Conservation Officer in this context:

“The site was formerly the Lion Inn, a three storey rendered building with slate roof, chimneys and a rounded corner at old Exeter street that faced directly onto conduit square. Following demolition, the site has remained undeveloped, at times unkempt with a truncated disjointed treatment to the gable end of no 31. It is identified within the Conservation Area Appraisal as an action point

�2 �

and an area that has an opportunity to be improved to enhance the character of the conservation area. The method of enhancement is not defined and could be by a suitable newly designed building as it is a brown field site, or through hard or soft landscaping.

The site is highly sensitive through being on the corner and affecting both Old Exeter Street and New Exeter Street and through being at the head and within key vision and viewpoints on Fore Street. It affects the setting of listed structures -the United Reformed Church, the Town Hall, 7 and 11 Fore Street, the war memorial and the obelisk; it affects other listed structures further removed from the site to a lesser extent and non designated heritage buildings.

Buildings along New Exeter Street are three storey with slate roofs descending in height to the junction with building widths of around 8 metres and the proposed building has responded to the scale of the descending roof height and building widths very well and has maintained this rhythm. Along Old Exeter Street the existing buildings are a mixture of two and three storeys and the proposed building is three stories, a little higher than the existing three storeys but descending to two storeys at the junction. It reflects building widths, shop frontages and regularly spaced windows. From Fore Street the building has been well designed to address the corner and makes a feature of itself when viewed from Fore Street. The acentric design works well to bring together both sides of the building on Old and New Exeter Streets and cleverly handles the change.”

2.2 It is noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer went on to respond that:

“The proposed design is a high quality design of its time; it is not a traditional approach and it has responded well to its context and to adjacent buildings. My only reservation is the possibility of domestic furniture on the balcony.

Materials for the new building should be carefully considered”

2.3 A further detailed description of the site together with a detailed description of the site’s historic context, is elaborated upon within the supporting Appeal Heritage Statement (‘Expedite’), and within the original Heritage, Planning and Design and Access Statement provided to support the planning application (Heighway Field Associates) and appeal.

�3 �

2.4 The originally submitted architect’s “Statement to Members’ is also provided at Appendix 1 and which provides further response to third party misconceptions and to reinstate a number of the pertinent facts as presented to Members.

3.0 Pre-application Discussions

3.1 14/01923/PE - Extensive pre-application negotiations were undertaken with the Council’s planning and conservation teams which enabled the design of the proposed development to evolve to a position where both the Council’s Planning Officer and Conservation Officer were fully able to give their support for the proposed development prior to the submission of the planning application.

3.2 The considerable effort expended by the applicant during pre-application engagement with the Council, to achieve a scheme which officers could support, is considered to be relevant. This can be summarised as follows:

(i) Initial contact with Chudleigh Town Council was made by the architect in May 2014 (in advance of any official 'Pre-Application' protocol with Teignbridge District Council (TDC)) culminating in an initial 'informal briefing' to Chudleigh Town Councillors on 25th June 2014.

(ii) From the outset (the client having originally approached the architects in November 2013) it was known to be important to engage with both the Town Council and a number of second-tier organisations, most significantly the established 'Town Centre Enhancement Advisory Committee' which had been instrumental in the process of undertaking the 2012 future vision report through the auspices of the TDC 'Teignbridge Towns and Villages Project', the conclusions of which the client's desire to explore the potential belated re-development of the subject were predicated upon.

(iii) A Planning Pre-Application Enquiry was subsequently submitted which was acknowledged on 26th June 2014. The first discussions with relevant TDC Officers took place on 10th July 2014 at which time schemes 1-4 (January - April 2014) were discussed.

(iv) Scheme 5 (June - August 2014) was presented at a subsequent meeting on 1st October and Scheme 6 (October - December 2014) on 29th January 2015.

�4 �

(v) Following the latter, a fresh approach was instigated and presented to Officers on 30th April 2015. This seventh proposal readily found favour with both Planning and Conservation Officers and proceeded to form the basis of the formal planning application submitted the following June.

(vi) It should be noted that prior to its submission, Town Councillors were again informally briefed at a meeting on 4th June 2015, at which time the architects renewed their earlier commitment to provide presentation panels and electronic files for physical and web-based public information displays, and to also present the proposals and facilitate a Q+A session at a Public Meeting to be held during the planning determination period but prior to the Town Council's own Planning Committee convening to consider the application. This event was eventually held on 5th August 2015. 3.3 During the determination period a number of objections were raised against the scheme and it is acknowledged that with hindsight, the proposals should perhaps appropriately have been aired publicly before the formal application was submitted.

3.4 At the time of submission however, there was no indication that the proposals would prove controversial particularly as the principle of re-development of the subject site was an integral aspect of the earlier Town Square Enhancement Study, which had been the subject of extensive public consultation and engagement.

3.5 Images of the ‘Scheme Design Evolution Diagrams’ are provided at Appendix 2 and selected pre-application images of the scheme’s evolvement during the pre-application process at Appendix 3.  4.0 Proposal Description and the Principle of the Development.

4.1 In accordance with both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 128 and 129 and Historic England’s Good Practice in Planning Note 3; “The Setting of Historic Assets”, the accompanying ‘Heritage Appeal Statement ‘(‘Expedite’) provides a detailed description of the proposed development and its historic context, together with an expert rebuttal of the Council’s reasons for refusal of the proposed development in the context of the historic significance of both the site and nearby historic assets.

4.2 In its conclusions, the ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’, noting that the Council’s reasons for refusal of the scheme are based on the loss of the open space and the perceived resultant adverse impact on the conservation area

�5 �

and heritage assets, concludes that it is contradictory to base the principle of a refusal on the loss of open space. This conclusion is fundamentally based on the facts that the Council’s own formal documentation, including both the Chudleigh Conservation Area Appraisal and Chudleigh Conservation Area Management Plan, highlights the open space the subject of this appeal, as a “development opportunity”.

4.3 The ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’ goes further to conclude that the conservation area has been shown, through the Council’s own and outsourced reports, to be lacking in a central focal point and Conduit Square has been recognised as a key area for redevelopment (specifically noted within the Chudleigh Conservation Area Character Appraisal as being a space and vista that “lacks both a focus and enclosure, mainly due to the loss of buildings here which are conspicuous by their absence”). The locality is also noted by the Council as comprising heritage assets which are marooned on a traffic island with no conceivable setting of any quality.

4.4 The high quality, sensitively designed development proposal will therefore re-establish a stronger building presence and sense of enclosure/focus onto the street, as promoted by the Chudleigh Conservation Area Character Appraisal, in addition to including a much needed active commercial ground floor frontage. This will potentially create a more vibrant focus onto this principal public space, noted as a historic meeting point and a key urban design nodal point.

4.5 The development is therefore considered to play a vital role in mending the historic townscape, creating a positive, well-designed backdrop to the identified historic assets and enhancing their historic setting. The development is thus considered to be entirely appropriate to the preservation and enhancement of the appearance and character of the Chudleigh Conservation Area, as supported by National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 126, 131 and 137 summarised in more detail below.

4.6 It is therefore considered that a material planning consideration to be accorded significant weight is that this principle is a specific action point of the Chudleigh Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

4.7 Consequently, the accompanying ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’ is considered to robustly demonstrate that the principle of the development fully accords with Teignbridge Local Plan (2013-2033) Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Criteria), S2 (Quality Development), S20 (Chudleigh), CH8 (Town Centre Enhancement) and EN5 (Heritage Assets), together with the Chudleigh

�6 �

Conservation Area Management Plan. The principle of the development is also considered to be supported by the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and also those provided by Historic England within its ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (April 2008).

5.0 National Planning Policy Framework and Policy Context.

5.1 The accompanying Heritage Appeal Statement submitted to support this appeal advises that the legislative test against which new development in a conservation area is judged is whether it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of that area. (Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 72 (1)).

The National Planning Policy Framework

5.2 Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local guidance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) is a weighty material consideration. It replaces the majority of Planning Policy guidance issued at National Government Level. Paragraph 215 of Annex 1 to the NPPF provides that the weight to be afforded to Core Strategy policies will be determined by the degree of consistency of those policies with the NPPF.

5.4 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF advises that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In the context of planning applications, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reinforces the requirement to preserve and enhance the historic environment and states in paragraph 126 that local planning authorities should (amongst others) take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets; the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of the place.

�7 �

5.6 As previously stated, in order to fully understand the significance of any historic assets affected by the development and to avoid and minimise any conflict between the development proposal and historic asset’s conservation, an accompanying Heritage Appeal Statement has been prepared in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 128 and 129.

5.7 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF is specifically noted as advising that local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

5.8 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF advises that “Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.”

Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (Adopted May 2014)

5.9 The Teignbridge Local Plan was adopted by the Council on 6th May 2014. Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Criteria), S2 (Quality Development), S20 (Chudleigh), CH8 (Town Centre Enhancement) and EN5 (Heritage Assets) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 and the Chudleigh Conservation Area Management Plan are of relevance to this appeal and directly quoted within the Council’s reasons for refusal of the planning application.

5.10 Policy EN5 (Teignbridge Local Plan) is of particular relevance to the appeal with resect to Heritage Assets and aims to protect and enhance the area’s heritage.

5.11 The policy states “Where appropriate development should include proposals for enhancement of the historic environment including key views and actions identified in Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plans”

5.12 The accompanying ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’ notes that Action Point 4 of the Chudleigh Conservation Area Management Plan specifically states “Enhancement opportunity at Old and New Exeter Street junction. The presently open but overgrown site at the junction of Old and New Exeter Streets is most prominent within Conduit Square. The truncated treatment to

�8 �

the gable end of no 31 New Exeter Street amplifies the gap in the street frontage of this important public space. A review of this space may present an opportunity to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.”

5.13 It is considered that the proposal has taken both this policy and Action Point into consideration throughout the evolvement of the development and is therefore considered to be fully in compliance with policy EN5.

5.14 The Council’s approved Chudleigh Conservation Area Character Appraisal, the Conservation Area Management Plan (February 2012) and the 2012 ‘Teignbridge Towns and Villages Project’ document all acknowledge that the setting for the monuments is poor, largely to do with being abandoned in a traffic island. It is also mentioned that the lack of enclosure of the square with the loss of the Lion Inn and Bank in the 1960’s has contributed to this poor setting.

5.15 The ‘Teignbridge Towns and Villages Project’ (2012) document is also noted as proposing a raft of improvements to both Conduit Square and Town Square to enable a better town centre focus and to improve the setting of these structures. (Attached at appendix 5 of the accompanying ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’).

Historic England ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (April 2008).

5.16 As stated within the appellant’s originally submitted ‘Planning, Heritage, Design and Access Statement’, the advice and guidance of Historic England contained within ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (April 2008) is of relevance to this appeal.

5.17 Introductory Paragraph 25 advises “Our definition of conservation includes the objective of sustaining heritage values. In managing significant places,‘to preserve’, even accepting its established legal definition of ‘to do no harm’, is only one aspect of what is needed to sustain heritage values. The concept of conservation area designation, with its requirement ‘to preserve or enhance’, also recognises the potential for beneficial change to significant places, to reveal and reinforce value. ‘To sustain’ embraces both preservation and enhancement to the extent that the values of a place allow. Considered change offers the potential to enhance and add value to places, as well as

�9 �

generating the need to protect their established heritage values. It is the means by which each generation aspires to enrich the historic environment.”

5.18 With respect to ‘Conservation Principles’, Historic England’s guidance within the following paragraphs is of specific relevance:

5.19 Paragraph 4.2 advises that “Conservation is the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations.”

5.20 Paragraph 4.3 advises that “Conservation is achieved by all concerned with a significant place sharing an understanding of its significance, and using that understanding to: • judge how its heritage values are vulnerable to change • take the actions and impose the constraints necessary to sustain, reveal and reinforce those values • mediate between conservation options, if action to sustain one heritage value could conflict with action to sustain another • ensure that the place retains its authenticity – those attributes and elements

which most truthfully reflect and embody the heritage values attached to it.”

5.21 Paragraph 4.5 advises “Intervention may be justified if it increases understanding of the past, reveals or reinforces particular heritage values of a place, or is necessary to sustain those values for present and future generations, so long as any resulting harm is decisively outweighed by the benefits.”

5.22 Paragraph 4.6 advises “New work should aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued both now and in the future. This neither implies nor precludes working in traditional or new ways, but should respect the significance of a place in its setting.”

5.23 With respect to understanding the historic value of the site and locality, is is a material planning consideration to first acknowledge the harm that has previously been caused to the site and locality by the loss of the buildings that originally existed and which historically provided a strong townscape feature framing the formal square.

5.24 This fact is formally recognised by the Council within its Conservation Area Appraisal and also acknowledged within paragraph 44 which advises that “Historical values are harmed only to the extent that adaptation has obliterated

�10 �

or concealed them, although completeness does tend to strengthen illustrative value.”

5.25 Re-establishing the strong building frontage as proposed by the development the subject of this appeal, will enhance the diminished value of the site, again a point promoted by paragraph 45.

5.26 The appellants accompanying ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’ (Expedite’) follows the principle guidance within paragraphs 61 to 83 (‘Assessing Heritage Significance’)

5.27 Paragraph 84 is of relevance to ‘Managing Change to Significant Places’ and advises that change to a significant place is only harmful if (and to the extent that) significance is eroded.”

5.28 Paragraph 86 advises “Keeping a significant place in use is likely to require continual adaptation and change; but, provided such interventions respect the values of the place, they will tend to benefit public (heritage) as well as private interests in it. Many places now valued as part of the historic environment exist because of past patronage and private investment, and the work of successive generations often contributes to their significance. Owners and managers of significant places should not be discouraged from adding further layers of potential future interest and value, provided that recognised heritage values are not eroded or compromised in the process.”

5.29 The fact that the historic value of the site has been harmed by the loss of the original buildings which provided a strong townscape at this site, yet is a value that is recoverable through restoration, is further acknowledged within paragraph 91. This advises that “Evidential value, historical values and some aesthetic values, especially artistic ones, are dependent upon a place retaining (to varying degrees) the actual fabric that has been handed down from the past; but authenticity lies in whatever most truthfully reflects and embodies the values attached to the place (Principle 4.3). It can therefore relate to, for example, design or function, as well as fabric. Design values, particularly those associated with landscapes or buildings, may be harmed by losses resulting from disaster or physical decay, or through ill-considered alteration or accretion. Design value may be recoverable through repair or restoration….”

5.30 It is further acknowledged that the justification for any such intervention to recover or sustain the historic value of a site should be informed by the ‘assessment of significance’. (paragraph 92).

�11 �

5.31 The proposal will also respect and restore the original sense of enclosure and more strongly defined square that existed historically, and in this respect, the ‘English Heritage Conservation Policies and Guidance’ paragraph 126 is also of direct relevance to the proposed restoration of the historic townscape form that is proposed by the development and advises “Restoration to a significant place should normally be acceptable if: a. the heritage values of the elements that would be restored decisively outweigh the values of those that would be lost; b. the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place, and is executed in accordance with that evidence; c. the form in which the place currently exists is not the result of an historically-significant event; d. the work proposed respects previous forms of the place; e. the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable.”

5.32 Paragraph 138 advises that “New work or alteration to a significant place should normally be acceptable if: a. there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place; b. the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed; c. the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now and in the future; d. the long-term consequences of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in the future.”

5.33 Paragraph 140 ‘The proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed’.

5.34 Paragraph 145 advises “New work frequently involves some intervention in the existing fabric of a place, which can be necessary to keep it in or bring it back into use. A ‘presumption in favour of preservation’ (doing no harm), ……. does not equate to a presumption against any intervention into, or removal of, existing fabric; but such interventions require justification in terms of impacts on heritage values.”

�12 �

6.0 S106 Obligation - Affordable Housing

6.1 Policy WE2 is applicable to the development proposal and therefore in accordance with the principle’s of the Council’s 30% affordable housing requirement, it is agreed that an off-site contribution amounting to £56,000 is acceptable if the Inspector considers this to be necessary to the development.

6.2 The affordable housing could be secured through a S106 Agreement and a draft section 106 obligation is therefore provided at Appendix 4.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 On balance, it is reasoned that the appellant has worked proactively with the Council to achieve a modern, highly sustainable, mixed use development that incorporates a high quality, yet sensitive design solution to strengthen the townscape and enhance the setting of the adjoining listed structures and buildings. The development is considered to fully accord with the provisions of Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (April 2008).

7.2 The submitted 3-D images demonstrate that the development will positively enhance the character of the street and can be reasoned to preserve and enhance the visual appearance and character of the wider landscape setting of the Chudleigh Conservation Area.

7.3 The Council’s principal basis for its refusal with regards the loss of open space is strongly refuted. It is a significant material planning consideration that until the early 1960’s, the site was occupied by The Lion Inn, a Bank and five houses.

7.4 It is also a significant material planning consideration that the principle of the appellant’s case is fully supported by the Council’s own formally approved up-to-date documentation including both the ‘Chudleigh Conservation Area Appraisal (2012)’, ‘Chudleigh Conservation Area Management Plan (2012)’ and approved ‘Teignbridge Towns and Villages Project’ (2012) document. These specifically highlight the open space the subject of this appeal as a “development opportunity”, and recognise that the existing historic value, character and setting of the conservation area and listed buildings within it, is currently diminished by the lack of a strengthened townscape at this point (as originally existed).

�13 �

7.4 The accompanying ‘Heritage Appeal Statement’ demonstrates that the high quality, sensitively designed development proposal will therefore re-establish a stronger building presence and sense of enclosure/focus onto the street. The ‘Volumetric Massing Comparison Diagram’ within the Heritage Appeal Statement Appendix 5, is particularly noted as providing a clear illustration of the importance of the strong original historic massing that formed and strengthened the townscape with a comparison to that proposed on this appeal.

7.5 The resultant development, including a much needed active commercial ground floor frontage, will create a more vibrant focus onto this principal public space, noted as a historic meeting point and a key urban design nodal point and is fully supported by the Chudleigh Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

7.6 The development is therefore considered to play a vital role in mending the historic townscape, creating a positive, well-designed backdrop to the identified historic assets and enhancing their historic setting. The positive presence of the development is thus considered to be entirely appropriate to the preservation and enhancement of the appearance and historic character of the Chudleigh Conservation Area, together with the setting of the adjoining listed buildings, and is thus specifically supported by Policy EN5 of the Teignbridge Local Plan.

7.7 In this context the development is considered to fully accord with Teignbridge Local Plan (2013-2033) Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Criteria), S2 (Quality Development), S20 (Chudleigh), CH8 (Town Centre Enhancement) and EN5 (Heritage Assets), together with the Chudleigh Conservation Area Management Plan. The principle of the development is also considered to be supported by the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and also those provided by Historic England within its ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (April 2008).

7.8 The Inspector is therefore respectfully requested to allow this appeal and grant planning consent for the development.

�14 �

8.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Statement for Members

TDC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE: TUESDAY 22ND SEPTEMBER 2015

PROPOSED RE-DEVELOPMENT OF 1 THE SQUARE CHUDLEIGH [REF. 15/01770/FUL]

STATEMENT TO MEMBERS

We do not as a rule directly address Members, but given the particularly vociferous local opposition in this instance we consider it appropriate in order to dispel any misconceptions which may have arisen and to clearly restate a number of pertinent facts.

The applicant has owned the site since 1998 (until 2006 together with the dental surgery at 21 Old Exeter Street). Consideration of potential redevelopment of the site has been motivated by locally generated strategic proposals for the enhancement of Conduit Square which first identified this opportunity, the genuine intention being to lend that initiative fresh impetus and ultimately contribute to realisation of its future vision for the town centre.

In the absence of any pre-conceived ideas about specific uses or external appearance, initial informal guidance suggested that generally three storey development of a design which would yield a strong architectural statement to repair the street scene in this prime location whilst creating an appropriate backdrop for a future enhanced public open space should be pursued. The proposed combination of modestly sized, relatively affordable market residential units with a use at street level along the principal frontages which would contribute to the public realm could not imaginably be more suited to the location.

Many residents have not known The Square other than in its current form, a fact which has understandably contributed to a perception that the site comprises public open space. Present perception of ‘The Square’ as a localised widening in Fore Street rather than a properly identifiable public space can be directly attributed to the current lack of enclosure at the junction of Old and New Exeter streets where formerly the Lion Inn building contributed significantly to a tightly defined urban space with an inward looking focus. On this basis we and Officers consider a new building on this site would be desirable, even necessary, if local ambitions for the wider rejuvenation of The Square are to be successfully fulfilled in due course.

It has been suggested by some that redevelopment should be strictly on the basis of a continuation of the style in which the town square was reconstructed following the 1807 fire. However, the true lesson of that episode in the town’s history is that rebuilding was carried out in the ‘fashion of the day’. Today, this once unfamiliar townscape is rightly valued and for a relatively modest early twenty first century redevelopment to similarly acknowledge the spirit of its own time is entirely

�15 �

consistent and would yield an appropriate contemporary contribution to the Conservation Area, as recognised and actively promoted by Officers.

Earlier more conventional design options fell short of Officers’ expectations for the site, our attempts to ‘turn the corner’ being considered excessively bulky and we were urged to review our approach and to consider a more contemporary aesthetic. The ‘break-through’ proved to be the idea of terminating the two proposed extended terraces along Old and New Exeter Streets in different ways (one to address Conduit Square; the other the Town Hall Square) rather than attempting to link them together with a third building element facing The Square. The distinctive curved frontage of the existing building at the junction of Woodway with Old Exeter Street provided the architectural inspiration for the curved element which is therefore no less contextual than the two gabled wings proposed to extend the existing terraces.

The proposed building volume addressing Conduit Square is substantially less than the former Lion Inn building. The curved element would sit entirely within the earlier profile and the wing along Old Exeter Street would set back considerably further from the 'memorial island' than was previously the case. The overall width of the curved element is similar to that of the 'memorial island' and its scale therefore comparable. Whilst locally comparisons are understandably made with the currently vacant site, the proposed scheme would both reinstate the square's historic sense of enclosure and achieve greater openness between building and obelisk than originally existed, emphasising its significance as a townscape marker and historic relic.

The building materials most characteristic of Chudleigh town centre are grey natural slate, grey limestone, grey granite and coloured painted render and the proposed materials palette continues their use. Many residents appear fearful of the proposed limited use of zinc, but it is a sustainable natural material with a long history of use for building generally which possesses a colouring highly sympathetic to slate and stone tones and weathers gracefully. It is as such a particularly good material to express both traditional and contemporary values, the use of which can assist in the successful integration of a contemporary building.

The proposed fenestration has also provoked comment, particularly in the knowledge that the nature and appearance of replacement windows within a Conservation Area are, rightly, strictly controlled. However, in the case of an entirely new building which seeks to avoid superficial imitation, it is important that this aspect be consistent with its contemporary architectural design. In many respects, the evolution of ‘the window’ tells the history of building, only limitations of technology having limited its size and nature in earlier periods.

History, like time, is by definition a continuous progression and one of many responsibilities of ‘Architecture’ is to express the spirit of the time of its creation so as to leave a long term legacy of each generation for the benefit of future generations and their understanding and appreciation of their predecessors. Accordingly, we have set out to respect the past and express the present in equal measure.

Whilst in no way dismissing public sentiment, we are confident that residents’ fears of change would prove unfounded and that the proposed building would make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area (extending the valued history of the town’s evolution into the present century) and succeed in re-establishing the urban space of Conduit Square assisting greatly in making it conducive once again to the commercial, cultural and civic activities it has historically hosted.

�16 �

On this basis, we urge the townspeople of Chudleigh and their Representatives to show the courage demonstrated by their forebears at the dawn of the nineteenth century and embrace an architectural expression of the present time (the more so because it is actually a subtle one informed by the town’s historic character) and lend support to a scheme which, as recognized by Officers, is genuinely striving to reinterpret the town’s historic characteristics from a contemporary perspective rather than clothe a modern structure in facades which only imitate these and which as such could never be authentic.

HEIGHWAY FIELD ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 2015

�17 �

Appendix 2 - Scheme Design Evolution Diagrams (1-6)

�18 �

Scheme Design: Evolution Diagrams

1) January 2014 2) February 2014

3) March 2014 4) April 2014

(First Pre-Application meeting: 10/07/14)

5) July 2014

(Second Pre-Application meeting: 01/10/14)

6) October 2014

(Third Pre-Application meeting: 29/01/15)

Appendix 2. Scheme Evolution Design Diagrams (7)

�19 �

Appendix 3. Pre-Application images (Scheme 1)

�20 �