Torbay Council receives new bid to turn Paignton ambulance office into respite centre

A new bid to turn a former ambulance office in Paignton into a respite centre for adults has been submitted to Torbay Council, months after a near-identical plan for the same building was thrown out.

The application, for 41 Totnes Road, seeks permission to change the use of the site from ambulance offices to a residential institution operating as an adult's respite centre, along with the construction of a single-storey extension to the rear of the building.

It was submitted by applicant Cartright, through agent Puffin Architects Ltd, and was received by Torbay Council on August 24 and validated two days later. The application carries the reference P/2026/0532.

The application is being assessed by case officer Sean Davies, with a decision expected to be made under delegated powers rather than by the council's planning committee. The consultation period, during which members of the public can submit comments, is due to run until September 24.

In planning terms, the building currently falls under what is known as Use Class E, a broad category covering commercial and service uses including shops, offices and health facilities. The application asks for this to be changed to Use Class C2, which applies to residential institutions such as care homes, nursing homes and respite centres, where accommodation is provided alongside a level of care or supervision. A change between the two use classes requires formal planning permission, which is why the proposal has gone before the council rather than being carried out under permitted development rights.

It is the second time in a matter of months that a change of use application has been submitted for the site. The new application names Cartright as the applicant, while the earlier scheme, received in March and validated on May 1, was submitted in the name of Siesta Ltd, with Puffin Architects Ltd acting as agent on both occasions. That earlier version of the scheme, which also included extensions to the rear and the side of the building, was refused by Torbay Council on June 25, in a decision issued by Liam Montgomery, the council's Divisional Director for Place Strategy.

In its refusal notice, the council set out five reasons for rejecting the application. Planning officers said no evidence had been provided to demonstrate a need for a care home at the site, or one of the size proposed, putting the scheme at odds with the local plan's policy on housing for people in need of care.

They also found that the proposed rear and side extensions would harm the appearance of the street, would sit poorly with the character of the surrounding area, and would be too dominant in relation to the existing building rather than subordinate to it, in conflict with design policies in both the Torbay Local Plan and the Paignton Neighbourhood Plan.

A further reason cited was harm to the setting of a designated Key Building and to the character of the surrounding conservation area, with officers concluding that the benefits of the scheme were not sufficient to outweigh that harm.

The council additionally said there was not enough information to show how kitchen ventilation and extraction, and the resulting noise and odour, would be managed without affecting neighbouring properties, and that similar gaps existed around how waste and recycling would be handled on site.

The earlier scheme nevertheless prompted a strong reaction locally. A number of residents of Dawes Court, a retirement complex directly behind the site, raised concerns about the proposal during the consultation. Some also raised concerns about the condition of a boundary wall between Dawes Court and the site, close to where a garden had been proposed, describing it as cracked and poorly built, and asked for a councillor to visit and inspect it. The proximity of a nearby school was also raised as a concern by some residents.

One resident argued that converting the building into what they called a multi-occupancy refuge for people who had experienced social and domestic problems was inappropriate for the surrounding residential area, and said neighbouring families felt threatened by the prospect of unregulated multiple occupancy potentially linked to alcohol and drug-related issues. They suggested the building would be better suited to conversion into residential units for families.

Not all responses were opposed. Another resident submitted a neutral comment in May in which they asked the council to clarify what an adult's respite centre under Class C2 would actually involve. They said their view would depend on the answer, noting that a respite centre for elderly people with dementia, or for their carers, would not concern them, but that a centre for people with substance abuse or alcohol-related issues would raise different concerns for a block with a number of older residents.

The new application removes the side extension that officers criticised in June, retaining only a single-storey extension to the rear.

Whether that, along with any further information submitted alongside the application, addresses the council's other concerns around need, heritage impact, ventilation and waste will now be considered by officers over the coming weeks. Residents and other interested parties have until September 24 to submit comments on the revised scheme before a decision is made.